Abortion Discussion

Dan_Solo

silverharp wrote: »

can you link to a paper that says the "brain becomes human" at 25 weeks?

As soon as you find find a peer reviewed publication proving "woman's body, woman's choice" etc., or "killing the foetus is OK before 24 weeks". These aren't the kind of things you find in papers. A functioning human brain is what makes a human.

silverharp wrote: »

No I believe humans have rights not to be aggressed against after they leave the womb , before that the rights to the unborn could be transferred if possible which brings us back to survivability

What rights of the unborn? You have refused to offer any case that they have rights at all and are oh so carefully avoiding ever stating when a human begins to receive the benefit of human rights.
Apparently these rights being a function of the medical support currently available to you. If no doctor is available to perform the abortion the foetus magically transforms into a human? Is this a Schrodingers Cat thing, where the foetus is both human and not-human, depending on whether there's a doctor available to get it out who can keep it alive?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

I've already said that sperm and eggs are human. A fingernail is human.

This is waffle.
So the whole universe is human because that's what we're made of? All a bit spiritual sounding to me!
You are again conflating potential to be human with humanity. Humanity is what our brain does that separates us from stars, fingernails and unfertilised unincubated eggs.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

I'm aware that biology might be regarded as natural philosophy, but I didn't actually put forward a biological argument for when a nascent human becomes a biological individual.
Considering that it is an entity with a unique dna sequence, in that sense individuation has definitively occured: there is no other creature we're aware of in the universe that's the same. And for the sake of potential pedantry, even in the case of multiple individuals from a single zygote they can be readily distinguished from one another by the simple fact they occupy different spaces at the same time, so one is manifestly not the other.

The occurrence of unique DNA may indicate individuation, but this has no real connection with human-ness. Cancer cells have different DNA to the rest of the body. Are they now separate human entities? Epigenetics has also fairly conclusively proven that even 100% identical DNA strands have alternative control mechanism that produce different individuals (which as you point out are different anyway due to environmental factors I accept).
I just don't see how this individuation theory has any connection to when human rights are applicable to the entity.

silverharp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

As soon as you find find a peer reviewed publication proving "woman's body, woman's choice" etc., or "killing the foetus is OK before 24 weeks". These aren't the kind of things you find in papers. A functioning human brain is what makes a human.
What rights of the unborn? You have refused to offer any case that they have rights at all and are oh so carefully avoiding ever stating when a human begins to receive the benefit of human rights.
Apparently these rights being a function of the medical support currently available to you. If no doctor is available to perform the abortion the foetus magically transforms into a human? Is this a Schrodingers Cat thing, where the foetus is both human and not-human, depending on whether there's a doctor available to get it out who can keep it alive?

I've been clear , no human has an absolute right to life. They have negative rights to life. I gave you an adult situation where someone can't be forced to supply medical treatment which has nothing to do with the status of the human.
A foetus has rights to life imo if the guardianship rights can be transferred. Or put another way the mother can't be forced to sustain the life of the foetus and its up to society to take over that job if it wants to. So we are back to sustainability.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The occurrence of unique DNA may indicate individuation, but this has no real connection with human-ness. Cancer cells have different DNA to the rest of the body. Are they now separate human entities? Epigenetics has also fairly conclusively proven that even 100% identical DNA strands have alternative control mechanism that produce different individuals (which as you point out are different anyway due to environmental factors I accept).
I just don't see how this individuation theory has any connection to when human rights are applicable to the entity.

I didn't say it had anything to do with human-ness (however you choose to define what you think human-ness is). I was answering alaimacercs question about individuals.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is waffle.
So the whole universe is human because that's what we're made of? All a bit spiritual sounding to me!
You are again conflating potential to be human with humanity. Humanity is what our brain does that separates us from stars, fingernails and unfertilised unincubated eggs.

No, consciousness is what our brain does. Being human is a far less active criterion. The "whole universe" is certainly not human, humans are a carbon-based entity, which eliminates all inorganic material for starters.

Anyway you seem to be determined to have an argument based on differing definitions while refusing to define the words precisely in the first place.

It's a pretty classic example of trolling behaviour, and I'll leave you to it.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

No, consciousness is what our brain does. Being human is a far less active criterion. The "whole universe" is certainly not human, humans are a carbon-based entity, which eliminates all inorganic material for starters.

Anyway you seem to be determined to have an argument based on differing definitions while refusing to define the words precisely in the first place.

I made a very clear definition of human-ness. Human brain higher cortical function. This is exactly the same criteria used to decide when right-to-life can be withdrawn in the case of PVS.
You on the other hand refuse to define anything whatsoever about when human rights apply, except of course in the case of pregnant women. And it's painfully obvious at this stage you are fully aware any answer you give will lead to problems with your argument which is why you refuse to do so.
Humans are carbon based? So you've ruled out the entire universe as being human. Well that's narrowed your definition down somewhat! So, inanimate carbon rods are human then, or would you care to reduce the possibilities once more? We can do this process maybe a few hundred times until we get to something specific?

silverharp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I made a very clear definition of human-ness. Human brain higher cortical function. This is exactly the same criteria used to decide when right-to-life can be withdrawn in the case of PVS.
You on the other hand refuse to define anything whatsoever about when human rights apply, except of course in the case of pregnant women. And it's painfully obvious at this stage you are fully aware any answer you give will lead to problems with your argument which is why you refuse to do so.
Humans are carbon based? So you've ruled out the entire universe as being human. Well that's narrowed your definition down somewhat! So, inanimate carbon rods are human then, or would you care to reduce the possibilities once more? We can do this process maybe a few hundred times until we get to something specific?

In your PVS case you have a hole on the basis that the case is not reversible.

Dan_Solo

silverharp wrote: »

In your PVS case you have a hole on the basis that the case is not reversible.

Could you explain why this is a problem? No human brain higher function -> no human. Where does non-reversal come into it? That's the whole point of the removal of the human right to life in PVS: they do not have the hallmarks of humanity (higher brain function) and not even the potential for such were that to be considered.

silverharp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Could you explain why this is a problem? No human brain higher function -> no human. Where does non-reversal come into it? That's the whole point of the removal of the human right to life in PVS: they do not have the hallmarks of humanity (higher brain function) and not even the potential for such were that to be considered.

But if it was reversible then the support would not be turned off . if a foetus is on a trajectory to having all the attributes how can you use the example of a PVS case?
My problem I guess is that a 24ish week old wouldn't pass any particular "human" tests nor would a 1 day old baby for that matter, a chimp would be more "human". If you wanted in theory to download your brain function to it, it would be like downloading an Xbox to a 1990's Nokia phone.

Brian Shanahan

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?

According to catholic theology the soul doesn't enter the body until 40 days after conception. Previously they used argue 13 1/2 weeks, hence why allowing abortions until that period has actually been the rcc's longest held position on abortion.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

According to catholic theology the soul doesn't enter the body until 40 days after conception. Previously they used argue 13 1/2 weeks, hence why allowing abortions until that period has actually been the rcc's longest held position on abortion.

Well.. when ensoulment may be said to take place was mentioned before, but anyways, for the sake of accuracy, the current RCC position is that it has not taken a definitive position on when ensoulment takes place.
However, Pope Benedict XVI stated that "We may say with Tertullian, an ancient Christian writer: “the one who will be a man is one already”, there is no reason not to consider him a person from conception.", and it's unlikely the RCC will allow that there could be a person who does not have a soul, so, until there's another Papal pronouncement the Church's (non-canonical) position would appear to be that ensoulment occurs at, or has occurred by, conception.

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

According to catholic theology the soul doesn't enter the body until 40 days after conception.

Not actually true, as Ab has pointed out.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Previously they used argue 13 1/2 weeks, hence why allowing abortions until that period has actually been the rcc's longest held position on abortion.

Famously not true. Condemnation of abortion is one of the earliest distinctively Christian moral stances that we know of.

Kidchameleon

Now that the SSM referendum has passed, we can see that the church doesn't have half the power over peoples vote as some would like to believe. If an abortion referendum were to be rejected, would people blame the church for influencing the vote?

recedite

It all depends on the wording. It's worth remembering that the 8th amendment itself was opposed at the time by a combination of extreme pro-life and extreme pro-choice elements.
The same thing could happen again.

Absolam

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Now that the SSM referendum has passed, we can see that the church doesn't have half the power over peoples vote as some would like to believe. If an abortion referendum were to be rejected, would people blame the church for influencing the vote?

Presumably?
The notion that the people have spoken seems to be widely accepted by the Yes side in the Equality referendum, whereas the No side feel voters voices were ignored, the political parties railroaded the debate, etc etc...
Similarly, many of those who are anti Abortion feel the 8th referendum reflected the will of the people, whilst some on the pro Abortion side of the debate feel it passed due to religion, or the right people not being old enough to vote, or it was railroaded through legislation by lobby groups.

I think the losing side is always going to find a reason why it's not actually fair that they lost, but the simple fact is, in a referendum those who can and care to will vote, and those who can't and don't will not vote. We all own the decision for better or worse, because that's the system we have.

keane2097

The abortion referendum would be a good chance to wreck Iona's heads by asking the question the other way around, confusing the issue and relying on the religious compulsion to vote No to everything.

Kiwi in IE

I was asked this morning how I can support abortion when I'm having fertility treatment!!! If this mentality is common we are doomed. It's not a referendum about whether or not I'm going to have a feckin abortion personally is it! Should I have voted no the other day because I'm not sexually attracted to other women? (Actually according to this person I probably should have done exactly that!)

Lingua Franca

Heh. I've heard the same - how dare I be "pro abort" when I have kids etc. What's ironic is that "pro life" organisations oppose IVF. I support the right to choose and that means the right to choose to be or to try to get pregnant as well as not being pregnant.

Kiwi in IE

This type of mentality, where people judge everybody and everything from the perspective of their own privilege and circumstance, can only be attributed to a total lack of empathy as far as I can see, and it's frighteningly common. And clearly they expect that everybody else does the same.

Because I want another child and am having difficulties, all women should be forced to continue with their pregnancies even when against their will, even when the foetus won't develop properly, even when they have been raped? That just doesn't make sense to me. How is it logical?

lazygal

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Heh. I've heard the same - how dare I be "pro abort" when I have kids etc. What's ironic is that "pro life" organisations oppose IVF. I support the right to choose and that means the right to choose to be or to try to get pregnant as well as not being pregnant.

As I said to someone with similar views, I'm prochoice because I have children and because no woman should have to go through pregnancy unless she wants to. I was ambivalent/a bit prolife don't kill de baybies when I was younger, mainly because of the school and church influence. Once I was pregnant, any pro life leanings were swiftly left behind.

Vivisectus

Me and my significant other are actually against abortion where ourselves are concerned, but feel that other people should be able to decide for themselves.

That said, i would like to get in the ground floor and beat all you other people to the punch. If anyone mentions dead children, killing babies, or anything of the sort, or compares abortion to any sort of killing or murder, then that is certainly NOT just criticising my opinion: it is bullying, silencing, shouting me down, and all kinds of other opressive stuff. It is totally keeping me from expressing my opinion, which withers up and dies in the presence of any sort of criticism, which means that if you say things like that, you are part of the herd, the mob, and against free speech.

Stop trying to force your mainstream mob-opinion on me! Stop trying to shout me down aggressively! I have an opinion, and that means you must respect my opinion by not criticising it!

WILL YOU PEOPLE STOP SILENCING MEEEEEE!

Kiwi in IE

Vivisectus wrote: »

Me and my significant other are actually against abortion where ourselves are concerned, but feel that other people should be able to decide for themselves.

That said, i would like to get in the ground floor and beat all you other people to the punch. If anyone mentions dead children, killing babies, or anything of the sort, or compares abortion to any sort of killing or murder, then that is certainly NOT just criticising my opinion: it is bullying, silencing, shouting me down, and all kinds of other opressive stuff. It is totally keeping me from expressing my opinion, which withers up and dies in the presence of any sort of criticism, which means that if you say things like that, you are part of the herd, the mob, and against free speech.

Stop trying to force your mainstream mob-opinion on me! Stop trying to shout me down aggressively! I have an opinion, and that means you must respect my opinion by not criticising it!

WILL YOU PEOPLE STOP SILENCING MEEEEEE!

Yeah I feel pretty much the same, I wouldn't have an abortion under normal circumstances. But that is very, very easy for me to say as someone who has finished my education, is in my late thirties, wants another child, is financially stable(ish) and is in a stable relationship. I don't however think that legislation should be written on based on my own circumstances!

And even on saying that, there are definately circumstances which I hope I never find myself in, where I would have an abortion; sexual assault, fatal fetal abnormality and if the pregnancy threatened my health to the point I would be able to continue to fulfil my role in my existing family. There is no question whether I would have an abortion under these circumstances, I'd be in the next plane!

recedite

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

.. sexual assault, fatal fetal abnormality and if the pregnancy threatened my health to the point I would be able to continue to fulfil my role in my existing family. There is no question whether I would have an abortion under these circumstances, I'd be in the next plane!

If they propose an amendment allowing abortion for FFA, then it would almost certainly be carried. But the more other scenarios are added in, the less chance of it passing. So a lot depends on asking the right question, and not making it too complicated. A proposal to remove the 8th amendment altogether would be too complex for a simple Yes/No answer, because it would be open to interpretation as to what would happen afterwards.

eviltwin

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yeah I feel pretty much the same, I wouldn't have an abortion under normal circumstances. But that is very, very easy for me to say as someone who has finished my education, is in my late thirties, wants another child, is financially stable(ish) and is in a stable relationship. I don't however think that legislation should be written on based on my own circumstances!

And even on saying that, there are definately circumstances which I hope I never find myself in, where I would have an abortion; sexual assault, fatal fetal abnormality and if the pregnancy threatened my health to the point I would be able to continue to fulfil my role in my existing family. There is no question whether I would have an abortion under these circumstances, I'd be in the next plane!

I was the same as you until sh1t happened and I found myself booking a flight to the UK. You just never know what you'll do until you're in that position. I spent a bit of time helping out at a support group for women who had abortions and every one of them said they never thought they would be one of those statistics.

Cabaal

Personally I think we should affectively copy the UK in relation to allowing abortion to x weeks, but I don't think this will fly in Ireland.

However, allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest is a perfectly reasonable request and something that should beyond doubt be allowed in Ireland. In addition allowing abortions in cases of fetal abnormalities or where the mothers life is at risk should also be allowed.

Many people including of course the catholic church are dead set against abortions in cases of rape or incest. But ask yourself this, if it was your daughter, wife, mother or sister raped would you want them to go through with it? Would you want them to feel violated each and every day?

I know i sure as hell wouldn't, I don't know how anyone would want somebody to go through it.

In relation to fetal abnormalities or wife's life at risk, not everyone wants to take the increased risk or wants a baby that will never actually live. If somebody wants to do that then thats their choice. But again I know if it was my wife and she wanted an abortion in such a situation I'd support her every step of the way.

Keepan Eye

Yes indeed it is Horrific :Male on Male Rape or Male on Female or Female on Female [ happens I'm told ] . Maybe ask some child who was born from Male on Female rape what he or she thinks. Hate to be a Solomon here but it would be enlightening. Imagine how a child born of such awful events must feel when they read my/your; casual discussion of their Pain.-- I am sorry to those affected and I do not speak from any agenda.
There was a woman on the LATE LATE SHOW last year who spoke of how she was born of Incest between her Brother and Sister. Such a forgiving beautiful person--we could learn a lot from her. I feel almost in breach of confidence mentioning her story. I'm sorry but this Woman must be heard and included in our society if we aspire to an inclusive Loving family on earth, Yet this type of event occurs in Ireland [ and the World ] and is THE LAST TABOO....like the Love That Dare Not Speak its Name was once a Taboo.

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

.. where the mothers life is at risk should also be allow.

Already is allowed.

Rape and incest might fly, but the more extras that are added in beyond FFA, the more Yes voters drop away.
Ideally a multi-question referendum with a Yes/No answer for each separate proviso would be the way to go. Then after the count, only insert those resulting with a Yes majority into the Constitution. But that's not generally how things are done here, unfortunately.

Cabaal

Keepan Eye wrote: »

Yes indeed it is Horrific :Male on Male Rape or Male on Female or Female on Female [ happens I'm told ] . Maybe ask some child who was born from Male on Female rape what he or she thinks. Hate to be a Solomon here but it would be enlightening. Imagine how a child born of such awful events must feel when they read my/your; casual discussion of their Pain.-- I am sorry to those affected and I do not speak from any agenda.
There was a woman on the LATE LATE SHOW last year who spoke of how she was born of Incest between her Brother and Sister. Such a forgiving beautiful person--we could learn a lot from her. I feel almost in breach of confidence mentioning her story. I'm sorry but this Woman must be heard and included in our society if we aspire to an inclusive Loving family on earth, Yet this type of event occurs in Ireland [ and the World ] and is THE LAST TABOO....like the Love That Dare Not Speak its Name was once a Taboo.

So what I've learned here from you is rape baby's must be heard but ignore the women, her wishes, her bodily integrity? Nice

I can't help feel that if men could be raped and get pregnant then abortion in such instances would be available. I say this as a man!.

I suppose this is what happens when all major religious are run by men who see women as inferior to them, you can debate this but this is fact.

Thankfully not all men think of women like that, many (shock horror) see them as equal.

Kiwi in IE

eviltwin wrote: »

I was the same as you until sh1t happened and I found myself booking a flight to the UK. You just never know what you'll do until you're in that position. I spent a bit of time helping out at a support group for women who had abortions and every one of them said they never thought they would be one of those statistics.

Yeah I know. I could easily see myself being in those statistics in certain circumstances. My life circumstances are stable now and so unless sexual assault, fatal fetal abnormality or health, I can't see myself being in a position where I would need one now!

Like many people, it is only luck that I wasn't caught out when I was younger and not in a position to raise a child. If I had got pregnant when I was young, hadn't finished my education and had no means to support a child, I could definately have been one of those statistics too. One of my best friends ended up in that situation, but luckily she lived in a country where there was no issue.

My preference would be on demand until 12 weeks and then extenuating circumstances up to viability. The life and health of the woman goes without saying and should always be the number one priority (unless she chooses otherwise).