Abortion Discussion

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

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.

But the implication of that, Ab, is that if a majority favour unrestricted abortion at any stage then it is not only practicable but right for the law to allow that, and the dissatisfied minority should shut up about it. And, conversely, if the majority favours no abortion at any stage, and no pre-implantation contraception, then it is right for the law to so provide and the dissentient minority should, again, shut up.

While this would at least buy us some blessed silence on the subject, the drawback is that nobody, on either side, accepts this. The more serious drawback is that most people in fact affirm both values. The real debate is not over which value should triumph at the expense of the other, but how they may best be reconciled, given that the broad middle ground see both the right to life and the right to choose as worthy values, even if they don't all agree on how they interact.

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the implication of that, Ab, is that if a majority favour unrestricted abortion at any stage then it is not only practicable but right for the law to allow that, and the dissatisfied minority should shut up about it. And, conversely, if the majority favours no abortion at any stage, and no pre-implantation contraception, then it is right for the law to so provide and the dissentient minority should, again, shut up.

Well, it doesn't imply that the minority must shut up about it; only that they must put up with it. There's no implication that dissent must, or even should, be prevented. Nor does it imply that it is not only practicable but right; right is movable feast at the best of times, hence my statement that it may not always be right, but it is almost always the most practicable.

Peregrinus wrote: »

While this would at least buy us some blessed silence on the subject, the drawback is that nobody, on either side, accepts this. The more serious drawback is that most people in fact affirm both values. The real debate is not over which value should triumph at the expense of the other, but how they may best be reconciled, given that the broad middle ground see both the right to life and the right to choose as worthy values, even if they don't all agree on how they interact.

Agreed, though it's fair to say that there is precious little discussion of the middle ground, or where the two points of view might be reconciled. Both sides seem comfortably committed to playing on the extremes.
To the premise in your post though, if one the one hand you say "a majority favour unrestricted abortion at any stage", you can't really then rebut the argument with "nobody, on either side, accepts this"; you've already posited that a majority does.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

Agreed, though it's fair to say that there is precious little discussion of the middle ground, or where the two points of view might be reconciled. Both sides seem comfortably committed to playing on the extremes.

And that's my problem with the rights-based discourse; it encourages polarisation into mutually irreconcilable extreme positions, which in reality does little either to protect the lives of the unborn or to assure women of the right to control their own bodies. Even if one camp is currently in the ascendant and can secure laws reflecting its own priorities, they must live in constant insecurity that, in a couple of years time, this may not be the case.

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if one camp is currently in the ascendant and can secure laws reflecting its own priorities, they must live in constant insecurity that, in a couple of years time, this may not be the case.

I can't say that I'm entirely uncomfortable with that; the law should reflect the will of the people, and should change to reflect the fact that opinions change.
It will (or would, since I doubt I'll live to see it) be interesting to see if, when it does become technologically possible to fully accommodate both points of view, we are actually prepared to do so.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

And that's my problem with the rights-based discourse; it encourages polarisation into mutually irreconcilable extreme positions, which in reality does little either to protect the lives of the unborn or to assure women of the right to control their own bodies. Even if one camp is currently in the ascendant and can secure laws reflecting its own priorities, they must live in constant insecurity that, in a couple of years time, this may not be the case.

In the last few posts you seemed to be ascribing equal levels of displeasure for the impact on the minority view. there is a big difference between forcing a minority to comply will a rule as against something which the minority is free to choose not to access or do if it flips the other way. You dont have to look back too far in Ireland to see plenty of examples of this, the expression of homosexuality being a crime for instance or access to contraception

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

In the last few posts you seemed to be ascribing equal levels of displeasure for the impact on the minority view. there is a big difference between forcing a minority to comply will a rule as against something which the minority is free to choose not to access or do if it flips the other way. You dont have to look back too far in Ireland to see plenty of examples of this, the expression of homosexuality being a crime for instance or access to contraception

Sure. And I'm 100% on board with you as regards homosexuality and contraception.

But that as regards abortion that particular analysis assumes that the unborn are not to be considered a "minority" who are affected by permissive abortion laws that they don't necessarily agree with.

All you're really saying here is that if you have a pro-choice view, then pro-choice laws don't appear to adversely impact people who don't have pro-choice views. But if you don't have a pro-choice view, then they do. So this defence of pro-choice laws assumes the correctness of the pro-choice view. And we're back to square one. We have to concede that there is no reason why a person who doesn't already have a pro-choice view should accept this argument.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

I can't say that I'm entirely uncomfortable with that; the law should reflect the will of the people, and should change to reflect the fact that opinions change.
It will (or would, since I doubt I'll live to see it) be interesting to see if, when it does become technologically possible to fully accommodate both points of view, we are actually prepared to do so.

Actually, I think that there are in existence, or there are proposed, abortion laws that "go some way" towards accommodating both points of view, even though our polarised discourse discourages us from seeing them in those terms. For example, abortion laws which allow women to have abortions if certain circumstances exist prioritise the right to choose over the right to life in those circumstances, but absent those circumstances they prioritise the right to life over the right to choose. Or abortion laws - like Germany's - which require counselling before a woman can have an abortion recognise the right to life, but treat the reconciliation of that right with the woman's right of bodily integrity as a matter primarily for the woman, not the state. Or they treat it as a matter for her when certain circumstances prevail.

We also need to broaden the discussion out beyond simply asking what an abortion law might provide. There are countries with permissive abortion laws but very low abortion rates. That seems to me to affirm the right to choose (through a permissive law) while also creating conditions in which women tend to make choices which, in effect if not in intent, often sustain the right to life. That's quite a good reconciliation of the two, if we can work out how to bring it about.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. And I'm 100% on board with you as regards homosexuality and contraception.

But that as regards abortion that particular analysis assumes that the unborn are not to be considered a "minority" who are affected by permissive abortion laws that they don't necessarily agree with.

All you're really saying here is that if you have a pro-choice view, then pro-choice laws don't appear to adversely impact people who don't have pro-choice views. But if you don't have a pro-choice view, then they do. So this defence of pro-choice laws assumes the correctness of the pro-choice view. And we're back to square one. We have to concede that there is no reason why a person who doesn't already have a pro-choice view should accept this argument.

Its more the attitude the State should have. Essentially the state is enforcing a religious view of medical ethics. I'm sure there are a number of catholics out there that don't accept that divorce should be legal but essentially who cares? They should accept that the state ignore their religious beliefs as its not a valid basis to organise family law.
Now I have no actual method of saying which issues are religious and which are not but a strong constitution based on individual rights would have cleared up issues like family planning earlier instead of having a state that implemented Catholic values.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

Its more the attitude the State should have. Essentially the state is enforcing a religious view of medical ethics. I'm sure there are a number of catholics out there that don't accept that divorce should be legal but essentially who cares? They should accept that the state ignore their religious beliefs as its not a valid basis to organise family law.
Now I have no actual method of saying which issues are religious and which are not but a strong constitution based on individual rights would have cleared up issues like family planning earlier instead of having a state that implemented Catholic values.

Um. The view that foetal life is deserving of protection doesn't have to be a religious view; the view that a woman has a right to choose doesn't have to be a non-religious view. The point was made earlier that they are both philosophical positions, neither of which can be objectively demonstrated to be true or valid. You either believe them or you don't. I can't see any basis for arguing that beliefs which are held on non-religious grounds have a greater claim to be enforced by the state than those which are held on religious grounds.

For what it's worth, we do have a strong Constitution based on individual rights - we're noted for it, among those who pay attention to these matters. The personal rights section of the Irish Constitution is extraordinarly powerful and flexible. And, for the record, it did play a signficant role in "clearing up issues like family planning"; google McGee -v- Attorney General if memory is failing you. If it didn't clear it up earlier that it did, maybe that's because nobody thought to invoke the Constitution on this point earlier than they did? Which brings up a point which we need to remember; social policy isn't ultimately determined by the Constitution, except around the margins; it's determined by the citizens. And if Ireland, the state, had a conservative social policy, that's mainly because Ireland, the nation, was a socially conservative community.

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, I think that there are in existence, or there are proposed, abortion laws that "go some way" towards accommodating both points of view, even though our polarised discourse discourages us from seeing them in those terms. For example, abortion laws which allow women to have abortions if certain circumstances exist prioritise the right to choose over the right to life in those circumstances, but absent those circumstances they prioritise the right to life over the right to choose. Or abortion laws - like Germany's - which require counselling before a woman can have an abortion recognise the right to life, but treat the reconciliation of that right with the woman's right of bodily integrity as a matter primarily for the woman, not the state. Or they treat it as a matter for her when certain circumstances prevail.

To be fair most countries, even Ireland despite what some might say, try to strike some sort of balance between the two, which is why I said fully accommodate. the point being that whilst somewhere near the middle is where we are always likely to end up, the debate tends to be driven by the extremes.

Peregrinus wrote: »

We also need to broaden the discussion out beyond simply asking what an abortion law might provide. There are countries with permissive abortion laws but very low abortion rates. That seems to me to affirm the right to choose (through a permissive law) while also creating conditions in which women tend to make choices which, in effect if not in intent, often sustain the right to life. That's quite a good reconciliation of the two, if we can work out how to bring it about.

I'm not sure it would be all that reasonable to imagine that a low abortion rate results from permissive abortion legislation; I suspect the conditions which determine those choices are probably a far more substantive factor, and I don't imagine anyone would be likely to think that reproducing those would be a bad thing.

volchitsa

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.

Well perhaps I wasn't clear then (this may have been answered by someone else, I haven't read further before replying, but I want to clear this up)

The right of the mother to dispose of her own body is of course philosophical - a slave-owning society wouldn't accept that at all - but in our society that's the default view. I didn't mean it applied specifically to women. It would not be possible to force someone to give blood, not even to save someone's life, for instance.

So my point was simply that since our society has among its basic premises that all existing people have equal rights and that those rights entail as much freedom to do as one wishes with one's body as is consistent with issues about harm to others, then the onus is on those who wish to remove those rights from any particular group to prove why that needs to be done.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um. The view that foetal life is deserving of protection doesn't have to be a religious view; the view that a woman has a right to choose doesn't have to be a non-religious view. The point was made earlier that they are both philosophical positions, neither of which can be objectively demonstrated to be true or valid. You either believe them or you don't. I can't see any basis for arguing that beliefs which are held on non-religious grounds have a greater claim to be enforced by the state than those which are held on religious grounds.

I don't think anyone is arguing that a religious opinion is less valid than other opinions, the problem is that traditionally only religious opinions have been granted the status of facts in Ireland.

Other opinions are usually expected (and rightly so) to be borne out by some actual evidence before they are included in our legislation and enforced on others who may not share those opinions. As I was saying about Lubitz and pilots' right to medical confidentiality.

Why should religious opinions get a free pass on that?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

The right of the mother to dispose of her own body is of course philosophical - a slave-owning society wouldn't accept that at all - but in our society that's the default view. I didn't mean it applied specifically to women. It would not be possible to force someone to give blood, not even to save someone's life, for instance.

But it's not the default view in our society? The default view in our society is quite demonstrably that a woman or man can only dispose of his or her own body within the limits of the law, and the law prohibits someone from ending the life of a foetus unless it threatens the life of the person carrying it.

volchitsa wrote: »

So my point was simply that since our society has among its basic premises that all existing people have equal rights and that those rights entail as much freedom to do as one wishes with one's body as is consistent with issues about harm to others, then the onus is on those who wish to remove those rights from any particular group to prove why that needs to be done.

So..... the onus is on you, as someone who wishes to remove the right to life from a particular group, to prove why that needs to be done.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing that a religious opinion is less valid than other opinions, the problem is that traditionally only religious opinions have been granted the status of facts in Ireland.

Other opinions are usually expected (and rightly so) to be borne out by some actual evidence before they are included in our legislation and enforced on others who may not share those opinions. As I was saying about Lubitz and pilots' right to medical confidentiality.

Why should religious opinions get a free pass on that?

I'm not saying they should. Rather, I question your claim that "other opinions are usually expected (and rightly so) to be borne out by some actual evidence before they are included in our legislation and enforced on others who may not share those opinions". The notion of a woman's right to choose is an opinion which is not "borne out by some actual evidence"; it's a philosophical opinion just as unsubstantiated and just as unevidenced as the notion of a "right to life". Are pro-choice campaigners looking for a "free pass" from the test which you say should "rightly" be imposed?

I don't think it makes sense to demand "actual evidence" to validate philosophical claims about rights or duties. If we did apply such a test, we'd have to exclude all such claims, since none of them are established by evidence.

I agree with you that philosophical opinions which are (or may be) religiously-grounded should not be privileged, in public policy, over those which are not. But I also assert the reverse; non-religious philosophical positions equally should not be privileged.

Finally, I'm going to point out that the religious/non-religious distinction is, in practice, useless. Pretty well any philosophical position can be held on either religious or non-religious grounds. We can't simultaneously prioritise and downgrade the same opinion in framing public policy. If we enshrine the "right to choose" over the right to life, we are privileging the opinions of all who affirm the right to choose, regardless of whether they do so on religious or non-religious grounds, and we are downgrading the "right to life" regardless, again, of the diverse reasons which might lead people to affirm it.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not saying they should. Rather, I question your claim that "other opinions are usually expected (and rightly so) to be borne out by some actual evidence before they are included in our legislation and enforced on others who may not share those opinions". The notion of a woman's right to choose is an opinion which is not "borne out by some actual evidence"; it's a philosophical opinion just as unsubstantiated and just as unevidenced as the notion of a "right to life". Are pro-choice campaigners looking for a "free pass" from the test which you say should "rightly" be imposed?

Way to go to completely ignore what I actually said. My point is that calling it a "woman's right to choose" is a bit of a misnomer, because it is the default position for all in our society.

Hence my example about how unthinkable it would be to legislate to force someone to donate their blood even if that would enable someone else to exercise their "right to life".

In reality, in our society there is no "right to life" (well, except in Ireland, Paraguay and a few other quasi-theocracies, and then only for fetuses).

What there is is a right to mind your own business. Habeas corpus, I guess, is the most obvious legal expression of that. And of course there are limits on it, and situations where it doesn't apply - war prisoners for example. But those exceptions need to be explained and circumscribed.

Which is the point at which any need for evidence comes in - not to justify the basic right of the individual to dispose of his own body (Habeas corpus) even though as I also pointed out such a principle is not self evident in all human society. However it is a basic principle in modern western society, and I propose we can take it as a given. Unless you wish to remove that right from all people, not just pregnant women?

The rest of your post isn't a reply to mine, because I'm not saying that women have a particular right to choose, but that people have a right to dispose of their own bodies - unless there is compelling reason against it.

And "because someone else sincerely believes it despite having no real evidence" is no longer considered a compelling reason for any other restriction of our liberties. That's why we now have divorce despite the determined struggle of some of the very same rearguard who have renamed themselves "pro-life" for the occasion.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Way to go to completely ignore what I actually said. My point is that calling it a "woman's right to choose" is a bit of a misnomer, because it is the default position for all in our society.

Well, fine, drop the word “women’s”. It’s plainly not the “default position for all in our society” that there is a “right to choose” which prevails in all circumstances, regardless of the effect it may have on others. Your right to choose what to do with your fist stops in front of my nose.

So, if your claim is that the “default position in our society” affirms a right to choose which extends to abortion, what you are really saying is that the default position in our society is that the unborn are not “others” whose rights or interests set the limit to someone else’s right to choose. And that claim is plainly factually untrue; there are many people - I think probably a majority - in our society who believe that the unborn do have rights which can be validly opposed to the right to choose, when the two clash. It is simply not the “default position” in our society that there exists a right to choose which is unlimited or unconstrained by rights ascribed to the unborn. A pro-choice person might regret this reality, but wishful thinking is not going to solve the problem here.

volchitsa wrote: »

The rest of your post isn't a reply to mine, because In not saying that women have a right to choose, but that people have a right to dispose of their own bodies - unless there is some compelling reason why they can't.

Sure. I get that. And the claim that the rights of the unborn are a “compelling reason” is unevidenced; I get that too. My point is that the claim that people have the right to dispose of their own bodies in the first place, or that such a right is as extensive as you consider it to be, is equally unevidenced. My question for you is why, if you don’t have to accept the claim that there is a right to life for the unborn, others do have to accept the claim that there is a right to choose which is as extensive as you assert? Your claim involves a denial of their claim. If you don’t have to accept their claim, why do they have to accept yours? And why should yours be privileged over theirs in public policy?

volchitsa wrote: »

And "because someone else sincerely believes it despite having no real evidence" is no longer considered a compelling reason for any other restriction of our liberties. That's why we now have divorce despite the determined struggle of some of the very same rearguard who have renamed themselves "pro-life" for the occasion.

Yes. But you “sincerely believe” that people have a right to choose which does not give way to any right of the unborn, despite have “no real evidence” for that belief. So that’s not a “compelling reason” for restricting or discounting any rights the unborn may have. Unless you think your belief is a more compelling reason than someone else’s belief?

(PS: Are you a pro-divorce person who has renamed yourself “pro-choice” for this occasion? )

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, fine, drop the word “women’s”. It’s plainly not the “default position for all in our society” that there is a “right to choose” which prevails in all circumstances, regardless of the effect it may have on others. Your right to choose what to do with your fist stops in front of my nose.

So, if your claim is that the “default position in our society” affirms a right to choose which extends to abortion, what you are really saying is that the default position in our society is that the unborn are not “others” whose rights or interests set the limit to someone else’s right to choose. And that claim is plainly factually untrue; there are many people - I think probably a majority - in our society who believe that the unborn do have rights which can be validly opposed to the right to choose, when the two clash.

As I said, people believing it is not (or shouldn't be, in a genuinely secular society) enough of a reason to remove other people's rights. There is regularly a majority in favour of the death penalty in the UK, yet a complete refusal by legislators to consider bringing it back. There's a reason for that, to do with overarching principles that apply no matter what the majority may believe.

As to whether people really do believe it, they mostly really don't. They only convince themselves they do. Otherwise they'd ban IVF, the MAP, and there'd be no possiblity of abortion even to save the life of the woman. Can I decide kill you to save my life, if you aren't deliberately trying to kill me? (I could, but I'd have to go to court after. I might get off with it, or I might not.)

It is simply not the “default position” in our society that there exists a right to choose which is unlimited or unconstrained by rights ascribed to the unborn.

That's because the 8th amendment was based on religion. While that remains in force, Ireland will remain to some extent a theocracy. In other respects, it isn't. Otherwise divorce and contraception would remain banned too. This is the rearguard action of those religious activists, except that things have changed so much that the church barely dares show its involvement any more.

Gone are the 8th amendment days of the priest informing people how they should vote. They did have a go at it, again, in some of the marches a couple of years ago, but despite how tone deaf the hierarchy can often be, savvy media-handlers like Archbishop Diarmuid Martin seem to be prevailing.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

As I said, people believing it is not (or shouldn't be, in a genuinely secular society) enough of a reason to remove other people's rights.

You're still not offering me any reason to think that the right to choose exists at all, Vol, beyond your own belief that it does. You said in post #8536 that "a sincere belief . . . in the absence of compelling evidence" is not a sufficient reason; that seems to be to create a problem for anyone who urges legal acceptance and implementation of the right to choose. I'm not out of sympathy with your view, but I'm not seeing how you are getting around this problem.

volchitsa wrote: »

There is regularly a majority in favour of the death penalty in the UK, yet a complete refusal by legislators to consider bringing it back. There's a reason for that, to do with overarching principles that apply no matter what the majority may believe.

You might think that, and I might agree with you. But both of us are expressing a belief and your own stated position is that such a belief has no claim to legal enforcements in the absence of compelling evidence. And where is the compelling evidence for the belief that we both share?

volchitsa wrote: »

That's because the 8th amendment was based on religion.

Sadly, I think both the 8th amendment and people's reasons for supporting it are red herrings in this context. Even before the 8th amendment, it was simply not true that the "default position" in Ireland was that there exists a right to choose which is unlimited or unconstrained by rights ascribed to the unborn. I am fairly confident that, since the beginning of recorded history, this has never been true in Ireland. Arguments which start from the assertion that this right is the "default position" are going nowhere. It has never been the "default position" in the sense of enjoying majority or consensus endorsement. And if by "default position" you mean that the unrestricted right to choose is an ethical imperative which exists and haw moral force regardless of how many people accept it or why, well, that's a statement of belief which, according to your own assertion, the state must disregard unless backed by compelling evidence. And I don't think you will be able to marshall "compelling evidence" for the reality of an ethical claim.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're still not offering me any reason to think that the right to choose exists at all, Vol, beyond your own belief that it does. You said in post #8536 that "a sincere belief . . . in the absence of compelling evidence" is not a sufficient reason; that seems to be to create a problem for anyone who urges legal acceptance and implementation of the right to choose. I'm not out of sympathy with your view, but I'm not seeing how you are getting around this problem.


You might think that, and I might agree with you. But both of us are expressing a belief and your own stated position is that such a belief has no claim to legal enforcements in the absence of compelling evidence. And where is the compelling evidence for the belief that we both share?


Sadly, I think both the 8th amendment and people's reasons for supporting it are red herrings in this context. Even before the 8th amendment, it was simply not true that the "default position" in Ireland was that there exists a right to choose which is unlimited or unconstrained by rights ascribed to the unborn. I am fairly confident that, since the beginning of recorded history, this has never been true in Ireland. Arguments which start from the assertion that this right is the "default position" are going nowhere. It has never been the "default position" in the sense of enjoying majority or consensus endorsement. And if by "default position" you mean that the unrestricted right to choose is an ethical imperative which exists and haw moral force regardless of how many people accept it or why, well, that's a statement of belief which, according to your own assertion, the state must disregard unless backed by compelling evidence. And I don't think you will be able to marshall "compelling evidence" for the reality of an ethical claim.

I think you need to check what the constitution says about the rights of the individual. Religion is behind the 8th amendment, and the 8th amendment put a major restriction on those rights. I'm not denying those facts, I'm saying that religion, and nothing else, is behind them.

The fact that religion had it pretty much sewn up in Ireland for generations, and still has excessive influence in our schools and media explains the fact that this anomaly persists. But that's what it is - not much more than a leftover law from back in the days when priests hunted couples out of the bushes with a stick.

Peregrinus

So? You're still giving me no reason for discounting religious beliefs in particular; your own earlier claim was to the effect that all unevidenced beliefs should be discounted. And if the religious beliefs are ones that you happen to agree with, would you be making this claim? Would you say that a religiously-inspired campaign against slavery, or against the death penalty, should be dismissed becuase it is religiously inspired? Would you say that a religiously-inspired campaign which argued for pro-choice laws (and, yes, Virginia, there are such campaigns) should be rebuffed?

I would have said that the merits of an anti-slavery campaign, say, may depend on a number of things, but they don't depend at all on whether the campaigners are inspired by their religious beliefs to take the stance they do. The stance has merit, or it doesn't have merit, regardless of the motivations of the people who adopt the stance; you need to make judgments about the stance, not the campaigners. And the same goes for anti-death penalty campaigns, or pro-life campaigns, or pro-choice campaigns.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

So? You're still giving me no reason for discounting religious beliefs in particular; your own earlier claim was to the effect that all unevidenced beliefs should be discounted. And if the religious beliefs are ones that you happen to agree with, would you be making this claim? Would you say that a religiously-inspired campaign against slavery, or against the death penalty, should be dismissed becuase it is religiously inspired? Would you say that a religiously-inspired campaign which argued for pro-choice laws (and, yes, Virginia, there are such campaigns) should be rebuffed?

I would have said that the merits of an anti-slavery campaign, say, may depend on a number of things, but they don't depend at all on whether the campaigners are inspired by their religious beliefs to take the stance they do. The stance has merit, or it doesn't have merit, regardless of the motivations of the people who adopt the stance; you need to make judgments about the stance, not the campaigners. And the same goes for anti-death penalty campaigns, or pro-life campaigns, or pro-choice campaigns.

And you're still ignoring my fundamental point. It makes discussion very difficult.

I didn't say the fact that someone's motivations may be religious is an issue in any way, I'm saying that religious motivations for activism should have the same status as any other opinion-based activism : no more and no less.

At the moment, in the case of abortion, religion has been given a free pass. That was enshrined in the constitution at a time when the church still had the power to dictate its wishes, and a prolonged propaganda campaign in schools and the media, along with the fact that in reality most women who really needed one could access a termination by going abroad meant they kept a lid on it until recently.

But it just isn't true that the majority of people genuinely believe that a fetus is the same as a person who is born and has an existence, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, among others. So my point is that unless there is evidence that a fetus should have the same rights as its mother (as opposed to "the church says, so I believe..." sorts of reasons) it's past time to revisit that belief and see whether there is any scientific reason to define the unborn as equal to people instead of equal to the sum of a sperm and an egg. Or something in between (which is what I think)

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

That's because the 8th amendment was based on religion. While that remains in force, Ireland will remain to some extent a theocracy. In other respects, it isn't. Otherwise divorce and contraception would remain banned too. This is the rearguard action of those religious activists, except that things have changed so much that the church barely dares show its involvement any more.

Gone are the 8th amendment days of the priest informing people how they should vote. They did have a go at it, again, in some of the marches a couple of years ago, but despite how tone deaf the hierarchy can often be, savvy media-handlers like Archbishop Diarmuid Martin seem to be prevailing.

I'm not sure why you insist on making commentary on the Catholic church's position throughout this discussion. It isn't the same position as anybody else here as far as I can see and stinks of strawman TBH.
As for society never demanding one person look after another, this is simply untrue. See what happens if a doctor clocks off early and hits the pub, or a railway signalman decides to play Nintendo for his shift. Even more relevant (and you still haven't answered this) is that a mother with a "born" baby is required to sustain or arrange sustenance for her offspring. Yes, it is "the default" position, but that's not an argument at all that it is incorrect. Why should "society" be responsible immediately after birth but not responsible immediately before?
Also unanswered: how does anybody have human rights if we never became human, which seems to be your opinion as you have repeatedly fudged answering that question.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

I didn't say the fact that someone's motivations may be religious is an issue in any way, I'm saying that religious motivations for activism should have the same status as any other opinion-based activism : no more and no less.

This is true, but for the last 20 pages it's only the (strongly?) pro-choice side that has insisted all abortion debate needs a reference to the Catholic church's opinion.

volchitsa wrote: »

But it just isn't true that the majority of people genuinely believe that a fetus is the same as a person who is born and has an existence, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, among others.

Huh? Have we? I've seen no evidence that people think a full term baby has magically transformed from an inert mass of carbon based molecules to a human being deserving of full rights due solely to the fact that it has changed location. In fact, I think just about everybody would assume a baby minutes before birth is "a baby", it just hasn't come out yet. The fact it would be just as capable of survival outside the womb as if you waited a moment for it to be born anyway proves this by the same "survivability" criteria.

drkpower

Claiming that religion is the only reason the 8th amendment exists is simply wrong.

But more important than that, that mind-set actually takes us much further away from its repeal. The reality is that - for good or bad - a majority of this country support the foetus' right to life (which is what the 8th is about). The real issue is whether that right should be 'equal' to the mother's (which is what the 8th states) and if not, where the line should be drawn between those two rights. That is the battleground where the majority need to be engaged.

Pretending that the big bad catholic church is the sole reason for the 8th might make you feel better, but it gets you nowhere. In fact, it sets your goals backwards.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

I didn't say the fact that someone's motivations may be religious is an issue in any way, I'm saying that religious motivations for activism should have the same status as any other opinion-based activism : no more and no less.

OK. So religiously-motivated pro-life activism has the same status as non-religiously-motivated pro-life activism, and as religiously-motivate pro-choice activism, and as non-religiously motivated pro-choice activism. The motivation behind the activism is entirely irrelevant. We completely ignore it.

volchitsa wrote: »

At the moment, in the case of abortion, religion has been given a free pass.

No, this doesn’t make sense. Granted that the pro-life amendment campaign was largely religiously motivated, it didn’t get a free pass. It had to surmount the same hurdles as any other campaign - persuade the pollies to hold a referendum, then persuade the people to pass it.

If the pro-life campaign got a free pass in 1983, then the pro-divorce campaign got a free pass in 1996, and the pro-marriage equality campaign will, I devoutly hope, get a free pass later this month. But I don’t think that’s a particularly useful use of the term “free pass”.

volchitsa wrote: »

. . . So my point is that unless there is evidence that a fetus should have the same rights as its mother (as opposed to "the church says, so I believe..." sorts of reasons) it's past time to revisit that belief and see whether there is any scientific reason to define the unborn as equal to people instead of equal to the sum of a sperm and an egg. Or something in between (which is what I think)

And my point is that there is as much evidence that the fetus has rights as there is evidence that the mother has rights - i.e., no evidence at all, in either case. And you cannot, with consistency, demand that your unevidenced claims about the rights of mothers should be reflected in law and policy and simultaneously insist that claims about the rights of the fetus should be excluded because they are unevidenced. And all that you say about the role and influence of the church seems to be to be completely irrelevant; on the principle stated above (by you) the fact that claims about the right to life enjoy substantial religious support is not a reason for excluding them. Similarly, the lack of religious motivation behind (most) pro-choice activism is irrelevant. And it certainly can’t make up for the lack of any evidence to prove claims about a right to choose.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm not sure why you insist on making commentary on the Catholic church's position throughout this discussion. It isn't the same position as anybody else here as far as I can see and stinks of strawman TBH.
As for society never demanding one person look after another, this is simply untrue. See what happens if a doctor clocks off early and hits the pub, or a railway signalman decides to play Nintendo for his shift.

1) I don't have to take the same position as everyone else, do I?

2) do you deny that the 8th amendment was largely motivated by religious beliefs?

3) your examples are of people being expected to fulfill the demands of their job, a profession they chose to go into. That's not at all the same as a woman who may actively have tried not to get pregnant or who may have been raped.

Or whose situation may have changed radically since she decided to get pregnant - illness, abandonment by her partner, whatever. In the case of a job, you give in your notice.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Even more relevant (and you still haven't answered this) is that a mother with a "born" baby is required to sustain or arrange sustenance for her offspring. Yes, it is "the default" position, but that's not an argument at all that it is incorrect. Why should "society" be responsible immediately after birth but not responsible immediately before?
Also unanswered: how does anybody have human rights if we never became human, which seems to be your opinion as you have repeatedly fudged answering that question.

I don't really understand your questions here. You need to explain what exactly you're proposing, because I've never said that the embryo isn't human, it is.

But you might as well say that society should be responsible for protecting male sperm and female eggs, : they're human too, and once they have become a person (after the various intermediary steps including a full term pregnancy) they are entitled to human rights.

However before that point, they don't have any human rights.
So does the zygote that the two have just formed suddenly acquire human rights? If so, then we ban IVF and the MAP. If not, then when?

I don't think it's about the embryo or fetus being human, but about the embryo or fetus having the same moral worth as a person who has an autonomous existence. By which I mean a very basic autonomy : the person could be unconscious or even on life support.

(Though life support is apparently pushing it, in society's eyes, since there are many cases of families wanting life support kept on when doctors and courts decide to switch it off.)

Dan_Solo

drkpower wrote: »

Claiming that religion is the only reason the 8th amendment exists is simply wrong.

Precisely. You don't need to be religious to believe that humans have human rights and that at some stage a feotus becomes a human.
Not that the constitution couldn't do with a thorough cleanout mind you.

silverharp

drkpower wrote: »

Claiming that religion is the only reason the 8th amendment exists is simply wrong.

But more important than that, that mind-set actually takes us much further away from its repeal. The reality is that - for good or bad - a majority of this country support the foetus' right to life (which is what the 8th is about). The real issue is whether that right should be 'equal' to the mother's (which is what the 8th states) and if not, where the line should be drawn between those two rights. That is the battleground where the majority need to be engaged.

Pretending that the big bad catholic church is the sole reason for the 8th might make you feel better, but it gets you nowhere. In fact, it sets your goals backwards.

They might have in 1983 when Mass attendance was near record highs , we have an increasing secular country where less people will decide things based on what makes god mad.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

1) I don't have to take the same position as everyone else, do I?

Did anybody say you did? More strawmanning. You do have to support your case though or this discussion is a bit pointless?

volchitsa wrote: »

2) do you deny that the 8th amendment was largely motivated by religious beliefs?

This is also a strawman which has been well dealt with at this stage. The motivations behind any side of the debate are irrelevant as to whether you agree or not with the outcome. In fact you have alluded to this in your first point. If people want to say "because god" then that's up to them. It's the same as me agreeing (roughly) with the current UK regulations but for an entirely different reason, both reasons which are BTW entirely secular.

volchitsa wrote: »

3) your examples are of people being expected to fulfill the demands of their job, a profession they chose to go into. That's not at all the same as a woman who may actively have tried not to get pregnant or who may have been raped.

That doesn't mean society has not also decided they must fulfil these demands, much as in the case of the the mother being the "default" guardian of the baby. Should society put every baby into fostering automatically and let the mother apply for guardianship?

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't really understand your questions here. You need to explain what exactly you're proposing, because I've never said that the embryo isn't human, it is.

But you might as well say that society should be responsible for protecting male sperm and female eggs, : they're human too, and once they have become a person (after the various intermediary steps including a full term pregnancy) they are entitled to human rights.

Well, no. An egg isn't a human. It would be as useful to say any other cell is human, or ultimately the big bang is human. They have the potential to be human. Why decide when this ball of matter becomes human entirely based on the current advances and availability of medical technology? If a foetus can be made to survive right from IVF, then you are now agreeing it is human from the point of conception, which seems a strangely religious thing to do.

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think it's about the embryo or fetus being human, but about the embryo or fetus having the same moral worth as a person who has an autonomous existence. By which I mean a very basic autonomy : the person could be unconscious or even on life support.

Well you are actually if that's your criteria. Now everybody who can't look after themselves has ceased to be intrinsically receiving human rights apparently.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

They might have in 1983 when Mass attendance was near record highs , we have an increasing secular country where less people will decide things based on what makes god mad.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that they will decide what Volchitsa or yourself or myself or anyone else would wish them to decide. Opinion polls are fairly consistently showing majority support for abortion in cases of medical risk to maternal life (other than suicide), or fatal foetal abormality, or rape, or medical risk to long-term health, or this or that other fairly grave cause. What they are not showing majority support for is anything that looks remotely like an affirmation of the mother's right to choose, which is what Vol (and I think others) have been advocating for. The majority opinion is that a mother can have an abortion for a cause which we think is acceptable, and "we" are fairly restrictive in the causes we thing acceptable. The majority does not accept the view that the mother decides whether her reason for wanting an abortion is sufficient.

Are the majority still influenced by religion in the position they take? You think not and, right enough, the position they take is not the position of the majority church. Still, I don't think that means they are wholly uninfluenced in this by their religious beliefs. But I also don't think that matters; I can't construct any argument which says that peoples' views on this (or any other) question should have weight in public policy if they are formed by influences that are acceptable to atheists.