Abortion Discussion

volchitsa

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.

Yes, same here (though I was lucky, I wasn't living in Ireland at the time, for which I am eternally thankful).

But while I was already pro-choice for others, I never expected to find myself needing an abortion. But there you go, things go wrong in life and you pick yourself up and get on with it. It was the hardest decision I ever had to make, but I know it was the right one for us. It would have changed my other children's lives for ever, and I could never have got their childhood back for them. I regret that it happened, but I don't regret my own actions. I know it was the only thing to do really. Not so much for me, but for my children.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I was asked this morning how I can support abortion when I'm having fertility treatment!!! If this mentality is common we are doomed.

In fairness the 'if you believe this then you must believe that' mentality is not exclusive to the pro life position, a quick glance through this thread alone shows it occurs fairly frequently amongst pro choice posters.

It seems to me it's more likely to be used a tactic to point out how silly your position appears to be, when of course it really just points out how silly someones perspective on your position can be.
Like 'if you're pro-life you can't be anti-ivf'. Of course you can; people quite obviously are.

My own experience with people telling me if I support a death penalty I can't be anti abortion is a similar one I suppose; but I don't think the mentality is all that common, I think it's just the kind of person who says that sort of thing is more likely to speak without thinking than others.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

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.

No.

We talk about amendments to the Constitution being enacted by referendum, but in fact under Art 46 of the Constitution amendments have to first of all be passed by the Oireachtas, and then submitted to the people in a referendum. Which means the people can't be offered a selection of alternative amendments and asked which one they like best; they can only be offered one the Oireachtas has approved, and it can't approve inconsistent amendments, or present a selection of amendments, none of which it has approved.

And on balance I think this is a good thing. I see the appeal of the suggestion you make, partifcularly given where we're starting from, but on the basis that I think making decisions about the scope of abortion legislation ought to be a matter for the Oireachtas I really don't like them delegating the fine detail to the people; that's a cop-out. Plus, as a voter I might find the system frustrating; what if I approve of, say, element D of some menu, but only if element B is also going to be approved, or only if element F is not going to be approved? The system would allow me no way of registering such a vote, which really just highlights the fact that the Constitution is for enacting overarching principles, not fine details.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness the 'if you believe this then you must believe that' mentality is not exclusive to the pro life position, a quick glance through this thread alone shows it occurs fairly frequently amongst pro choice posters.

It seems to me it's more likely to be used a tactic to point out how silly your position appears to be, when of course it really just points out how silly someones perspective on your position can be.
Like 'if you're pro-life you can't be anti-ivf'. Of course you can; people quite obviously are.

My own experience with people telling me if I support a death penalty I can't be anti abortion is a similar one I suppose; but I don't think the mentality is all that common, I think it's just the kind of person who says that sort of thing is more likely to speak without thinking than others.

Here you are equating criticism of a paradoxical position ('pro life' and pro death penalty), with the nonsensical statement I described in my post (can't be pro choice when you want to get pregnant). There is no paradox between my positions on abortion, assisted fertility and pregnancy, all are consistant with promoting bodily integrity. Your positions on abortion and the death penalty however are paradoxical (abortion should be illegal because killing / certain criminals should be killed by the state). An equivelant paradox to your position on the two issues would be if I were pro choice, but wanted IVF banned due to the destruction of embyos.

Peregrinus

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Here you are equating criticism of a paradoxical position ('pro life' and pro death penalty), with the nonsensical statement I described in my post (can't be pro choice when you want to get pregnant). There is no paradox between my positions on abortion, assisted fertility and pregnancy, all are consistant with promoting bodily integrity. Your positions on abortion and the death penalty however are paradoxical (abortion should be illegal because killing / certain criminals should be killed by the state). An equivelant paradox to your position on the two issues would be if I were pro choice, but wanted IVF banned due to the destruction of embyos.

No, they're not paradoxical.

I don't share Absolam's position, but there is no paradox in beleiving that (a) human life cannot be taken unless certain conditions are met, and (b) those conditions are (or can be) met with respect to capital punishment, but not with respect to abortion.

If it were paradoxical to support capital punishment but oppose abortion, then wouldn't it also be paradoxical to oppose capital punishment but support voluntary euthenasia? Yet I know lots of people who oppose capital punishment but support voluntary euthenasia. (You might even be one of them!)

Kiwi in IE

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, they're not paradoxical.

I don't share Absolam's position, but there is no paradox in beleiving that (a) human life cannot be taken unless certain conditions are met, and (b) those conditions are (or can be) met with respect to capital punishment, but not with respect to abortion.

If it were paradoxical to support capital punishment but oppose abortion, then wouldn't it also be paradoxical to oppose capital punishment but support voluntary euthenasia? Yet I know lots of people who oppose capital punishment but support voluntary euthenasia. (You might even be one of them!)

I am one of them! Voluntarily euthanasia is again consistant with the ethical concept of bodily integrity. Capital punishment is a violation of bodily integrity.

Peregrinus

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am one of them! Voluntarily euthanasia is again consistant with the ethical concept of bodily integrity. Capital punishment is a violation of bodily integrity.

There you go. And Absolam will have an explanation - which will be just as valid as the one you offer here - as to why his views on abortion and capital punishment are consistent, not paradoxical.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Here you are equating criticism of a paradoxical position ('pro life' and pro death penalty), with the nonsensical statement I described in my post (can't be pro choice when you want to get pregnant).

My point being that some people think it's paradoxical (like yourself) whilst others think it's nonsensical to think the two are exclusive (like me). Which pretty much serves what I said; the fact that you, or the person who spoke to you thinks because you think one thing you must think another, doesn't make it true. And you're demonstrating that this applies as much to those who are pro-choice as those who are pro-life.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There is no paradox between my positions on abortion, assisted fertility and pregnancy, all are consistant with promoting bodily integrity. Your positions on abortion and the death penalty however are paradoxical (abortion should be illegal because killing / certain criminals should be killed by the state). An equivelant paradox to your position on the two issues would be if I were pro choice, but wanted IVF banned due to the destruction of embyos.

Only if you approach all the positions from the perspective of how it affects bodily integrity. If you choose not to consider that a factor, your paradox does not occur.
For instance, if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, it is not unreasonable to say that an unborn person has the potential to add value to society, whereas an unredeemable murderer and rapist has demonstrated the potential to remove value from society. From that perspective, it makes senses to preserve one and dispose of the other, and no consideration of bodily integrity is required at all.

silverharp

@Absalom," adding human value " would be tyrannical without values like bodily integrity and choice sitting above them. It would be unthinking utilitaranism. For instance one could force people into organ donation , or one child could be killed to save the lives of 2 children because there would be a value gain.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

My point being that some people think it's paradoxical (like yourself) whilst others think it's nonsensical to think the two are exclusive (like me). Which pretty much serves what I said; the fact that you, or the person who spoke to you thinks because you think one thing you must think another, doesn't make it true. And you're demonstrating that this applies as much to those who are pro-choice as those who are pro-life.

Only if you approach all the positions from the perspective of how it affects bodily integrity. If you choose not to consider that a factor, your paradox does not occur.
For instance, if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, it is not unreasonable to say that an unborn person has the potential to add value to society, whereas an unredeemable murderer and rapist has demonstrated the potential to remove value from society. From that perspective, it makes senses to preserve one and dispose of the other, and no consideration of bodily integrity is required at all.

Alright, I accept that perspective removes the paradox. But I do not accept that value to society should over ride personal bodily integrity. In fact I think that is a very dangerous road to start travelling.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

@Absalom," adding human value " would be tyrannical without values like bodily integrity and choice sitting above them. It would be unthinking utilitaranism. For instance one could force people into organ donation , or one child could be killed to save the lives of 2 children because there would be a value gain.

I don't know; it depends on what you mean by "adding human value" I suppose. How exactly do bodily integrity and choice sit above your concept?

For instance; is organ donation a part of adding human value? Are you saying that anyone could kill one child to save two, or that someone should kill one child to save two? Are you placing their facility to make the choice above the choice they make?

I'm not suggesting that our facility to choose or our right to bodily integrity should be denigrated, or devalued; only that (in the given example) bodily integrity doesn't necessarily have to be a factor, never mind the determining factor, in the process; it's the perception that it must be (in Kiwis case) that leads to the error of assuming someone must endorse a belief that they don't.

Peregrinus

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Alright, I accept that perspective removes the paradox. But I do not accept that value to society should over ride personal bodily integrity. In fact I think that is a very dangerous road to start travelling.

And yet other people argue for a permissive abortion regime precisely on the basis that it adds value to society.

It all comes back to the same point. We all have ethical values and principles, and we all have to grapple with the problem of reconciling or prioritising them when the conflict (as they invariably do). But there is no rule which says that you have to have the same values as I do, or take the same approach to prioritising or reconciling them. Given my values, and my approach prioritisation/reconcilation, the combination of positions you hold may look paradoxical. But, equally, the combination of positions I hold will look paradoxical if approach from the perspective of your values, etc. But so what?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

No.

We talk about amendments to the Constitution being enacted by referendum, but in fact under Art 46 of the Constitution amendments have to first of all be passed by the Oireachtas, and then submitted to the people in a referendum. Which means the people can't be offered a selection of alternative amendments and asked which one they like best; they can only be offered one the Oireachtas has approved, and it can't approve inconsistent amendments, or present a selection of amendments, none of which it has approved.

And on balance I think this is a good thing. I see the appeal of the suggestion you make, partifcularly given where we're starting from, but on the basis that I think making decisions about the scope of abortion legislation ought to be a matter for the Oireachtas I really don't like them delegating the fine detail to the people; that's a cop-out. Plus, as a voter I might find the system frustrating; what if I approve of, say, element D of some menu, but only if element B is also going to be approved, or only if element F is not going to be approved? The system would allow me no way of registering such a vote, which really just highlights the fact that the Constitution is for enacting overarching principles, not fine details.

Good point, but I still think there would be scope for the Oireactas to pre-approve several amendments, each one going a bit further than the last, but not contradicting each other.
While I agree the Constitution is for enacting overarching principles, not fine details, FFA could be presented as the principle of "abortion when the foetus is incompatible with life", which is hardly a "fine detail".
Similarly, for the principle of abortion for rape victims, the basic principle at play here is whether the sins of the father should be borne by the offspring, or whether the mother's right to bodily integrity takes precedence.
For incest, another different principle, based partly on the principles of "bad genetics" I suppose. I'll leave it to the proponents to elaborate further.

The "detail" in all these would involve what expert opinions were required and how many experts etc..

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Alright, I accept that perspective removes the paradox. But I do not accept that value to society should over ride personal bodily integrity. In fact I think that is a very dangerous road to start travelling.

Fair enough; so it's reasonable to say that the person who asked you how you can support abortion when you're having fertility treatment, like pro-choice posters on this forum, failed to understand there's more than one (equally valid) way of looking at things.

With regard to value to society and bodily integrity; most of us accept that those who pose a menace to society, or have shown themselves to be unwilling to abide by society's rules should be incarcerated, would you inculde yourself in that? There's no doubt that placing someone in prison removes at least some of their personal autonomy and facility for self-determination, which is an infringement of their bodily integrity; so does the value of such incarceration to society override the criminals' right to bodily integrity to any degree in your opinion?

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Fair enough; so it's reasonable to say that the person who asked you how you can support abortion when you're having fertility treatment, like pro-choice posters on this forum, failed to understand there's more than one (equally valid) way of looking at things.

With regard to value to society and bodily integrity; most of us accept that those who pose a menace to society, or have shown themselves to be unwilling to abide by society's rules should be incarcerated, would you inculde yourself in that? There's no doubt that placing someone in prison removes at least some of their personal autonomy and facility for self-determination, which is an infringement of their bodily integrity; so does the value of such incarceration to society override the criminals' right to bodily integrity to any degree in your opinion?

It does affect it yes, and I do agree they should be incarcerated as they pose as risk to others. In this instance I believe that protecting the public is a totally different concept from adding value to society. Abortion and IVF affect nobody except the woman/couple directly involved. To prevent abortion is not protecting society, it is violating women's rights to bodily integrity. That a foetus may develop into a person who adds value to society does not override a woman's right to bodily integrity.

I assume that symphisiotomies were performed on the concept of ensuring that the woman could continue to add value (children) to society. Likewise Magdelene Laundries were there to remove women who the powers that be saw as having little value to society. The purpose of concentration camps was to remove people whom those in control considered to be of little or no value to society. In all these cases it could be argued that 'value to society' (from the perspective of those in control of society) was being promoted, in all these cases that concept was considered more important than bodily integrity. I think that we can agree that all of them are horrific crimes against humanity.

Vivisectus

Getting pregnant gives society an equal right to interfere with your bodily integrity as it does when they try to prevent criminals from doing further harm?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I don't know; it depends on what you mean by "adding human value" I suppose. How exactly do bodily integrity and choice sit above your concept?

For instance; is organ donation a part of adding human value? Are you saying that anyone could kill one child to save two, or that someone should kill one child to save two? Are you placing their facility to make the choice above the choice they make?

I'm not suggesting that our facility to choose or our right to bodily integrity should be denigrated, or devalued; only that (in the given example) bodily integrity doesn't necessarily have to be a factor, never mind the determining factor, in the process; it's the perception that it must be (in Kiwis case) that leads to the error of assuming someone must endorse a belief that they don't.

It was your concept of the unborn having potential value as being a deciding factor in allowing abortion or not. I'm saying it shouldn't be as other factors like bodily integrity trump other considerations. Christians might have a problem with this concept as marital rape for instance wasn't seen against a backdrop of bodily integrity.

Huntergonzo

Just heard an anti-choice campaigner on Newstalk, she refused to budge an inch on abortion under any circumstances, so suggesting abortion on demand would almost certainly have given her a heart attack. So they asked her about different circumstances, this was the gist of it:

Rape? = we have great counselors and the child born of rape has every right to life, nothing about the rights of the mother who was raped only she might actually regret having an abortion and finally that we shouldn't even mention these cases ie sweep them under the carpet.

Fatal fetal abnormalities? = basically that it doesn't exist and doctors have 0% chance of knowing anyway, they're utterly clueless and goes on to tell a story about "baby Grace" (whoever that is, she was vague on the details) who apparently was given no chance of survival but now "she's learning to swim", oh ye that really pulled on my fickle little heartstrings.

Savita Halappanavar? = absolutely nothing to do with her pregnancy what so ever so an abortion wouldn't have helped at all.

All this barbaric nonsense came from a women aswell, talk about the turkeys voting for christmas!

lazygal

https://twitter.com/corasherlock

Sounds like herself.

She's one of those 'there's always a better choice unless you want an abortion in which case here's our travelling roadshow of women who regret abortion so you will too' commentators.

Huntergonzo

lazygal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/corasherlock

Sounds like herself.

She's one of those 'there's always a better choice unless you want an abortion in which case here's our travelling roadshow of women who regret abortion so you will too' commentators.

Yep that's her name, couldn't think of it, in truth there's no point in debating people like that, their opinions are cast in stone and any evidence to the contrary just won't register.

I absolutely hate it when men come out against abortion (I'm a man myself) because we're never going to get pregnant so what right do we have to force women into having a baby if she's not ready for it. But women coming out against abortion, I have to say I'm really struggling to understand that one, is it a religious thing or what because it doesn't really make a lot of sense?

lazygal

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But women coming out against abortion, I have to say I'm really struggling to understand that one, is it a religious thing or what because it doesn't really make a lot of sense?

I feel sorry for her tbh. I gather her brother runs the Liberal blog thingy that David Quinn lurves so I would surmise that she's received a thorough brainwashing in catholic dogma from childhood. She's totally wrapped up in interfering with other people's choices.

Huntergonzo

lazygal wrote: »

I feel sorry for her tbh. I gather her brother runs the Liberal blog thingy that David Quinn lurves so I would surmise that she's received a thorough brainwashing in catholic dogma from childhood. She's totally wrapped up in interfering with other people's choices.

It's sad to see someone not being able to think for themselves, unless there's financial profit for their campaigning (in which case their 'beliefs' are irrelevant anyway, it's all for the money) I don't think people like Cora are even capable of questioning their own beliefs.

As long as people like Cora don't call themselves 'human rights activists' then I don't mind, but how can someone who's actively campaigning to deny people rights call themselves 'human rights activists', surely they're 'restriction of human rights activists' and should be addressed as such, no shame in being called what you are.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It does affect it yes, and I do agree they should be incarcerated as they pose as risk to others. In this instance I believe that protecting the public is a totally different concept from adding value to society.

So you think that the protection of the public should should over ride personal bodily integrity?
I would suggest that protecting the public does add value to society, but I suppose the core point is that you seem to agree that bodily integrity is not paramount; there are considerations that may restrict it for the common good, so really it's only a matter of degree.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Abortion and IVF affect nobody except the woman/couple directly involved.

Well, it also affects the foetus involved to be fair. I agree some people consider it nobody; but that's a matter more of opinion than fact.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

To prevent abortion is not protecting society, it is violating women's rights to bodily integrity.

And vindicating the unborn persons right to bodily integrity. Given that you have the right not to have your body or personhood interfered with, and by the same document a foetus is a person there are two rights to bodily integrity in play there; though one course is rather more likely to have a terminal effect than the other.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

That a foetus may develop into a person who adds value to society does not override a woman's right to bodily integrity.

Well, that would be a matter of opinion I suppose. Personally, I would argue that regardless of the value it may add to society, even if it is none, the fact that it is a person overrides a womans right to bodily integrity.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I assume that symphisiotomies were performed on the concept of ensuring that the woman could continue to add value (children) to society.

Is the assumption based on a factual analysis, or simply a desire to bolster your case by giving the appearance of allying your position with a sympathetic tale?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Likewise Magdelene Laundries were there to remove women who the powers that be saw as having little value to society.

And the same again....

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The purpose of concentration camps was to remove people whom those in control considered to be of little or no value to society. In all these cases it could be argued that 'value to society' (from the perspective of those in control of society) was being promoted, in all these cases that concept was considered more important than bodily integrity. I think that we can agree that all of them are horrific crimes against humanity.

Though that might be a Godwin too far indeed :-)

Kiwi in IE

A foetus cannot have a right to bodily integrity whilst it's survival depends on a parasitcal relationship with a host who already has that right.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

It was your concept of the unborn having potential value as being a deciding factor in allowing abortion or not.

I'm afraid not; I said nothing about "adding human value" or whether it ought to be considered without values like bodily integrity and choice, that was all you.

Nor did I suggest that adding value was a deciding factor in allowing abortion or not, I said if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, it is not unreasonable to say that an unborn person has the potential to add value to society, whereas an unredeemable murderer and rapist has demonstrated the potential to remove value from society. From that perspective, it makes senses to preserve one and dispose of the other, and no consideration of bodily integrity is required at all.
If you don't approach either issue from that perspective, for instance if you approach them from Kiwis perspective of bodily integrity, then it makes sense in that instance to preserve the bodily integrity of all involved, or whatever the focus of your approach might be.
The point still being; the fact that someone thinks because you think one thing you must think another, doesn't make it true.

silverharp wrote: »

I'm saying it shouldn't be as other factors like bodily integrity trump other considerations.

I'd suggest a whole host of other factors might be considered, and 'trump' or affect your conclusion, religious leanings being something of an optional extra in the process.

silverharp wrote: »

Christians might have a problem with this concept as marital rape for instance wasn't seen against a backdrop of bodily integrity.

Christians and non Christians might have a problem with it simply because they consider more factors that you're putting forward; I wouldn't restrict the potential for debate to those who don't see marital rape against a backdrop of bodily integrity.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

A foetus cannot have a right to bodily integrity whilst it's survival depends on a parasitcal relationship with a host who already has that right.

Parasitical is one of those words that PopePalpatine described so redolently as 'snarl words'.... 'Dependent' just doesn't sound as prejudicial, does it?
Anyhow, I disagree. A person has a right to not to have their body or personhood interfered with, and a foetus is a person (to at least some degree) under the Constitution, so I would argue it does have a right to bodily integrity (at very least insofar as it may not legally be deprived entirely of it's bodily integrity except in specific circumstances). As to whether it can have a right to bodily integrity, of course it can, we need only confer it by law.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Parasitical is one of those words that PopePalpatine described so redolently as 'snarl words'.... 'Dependent' just doesn't sound as prejudicial, does it?
Anyhow, I disagree. A person has a right to not to have their body or personhood interfered with, and a foetus is a person (to at least some degree) under the Constitution, so I would argue it does have a right to bodily integrity (at very least insofar as it may not legally be deprived entirely of it's bodily integrity except in specific circumstances). As to whether it can have a right to bodily integrity, of course it can, we need only confer it by law.

It is not a dependent relationship, it is parasitical. If I have a foetus and I die, it dies with me because it cannot survive without feeding off my body. My six year old is dependent, but if I were to die that does not mean that he would be unable to survive. Therefore I would say that your wording 'dependant' is more prejudicial.

Whether or not the law says that a foetus has bodily integrity, it does not. It is impossible for it to have bodily integrity whilst it is living inside a host. It cannot be protected for example from the woman causing harm to herself which impacts it's well being or even existence, so how is it possible for it to have bodily integrity?

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It is not a dependent relationship, it is parasitical. If I have a foetus and I die, it dies with me because it cannot survive without feeding off my body. My six year old is dependent, but if I were to die that does not mean that he would be unable to survive. Therefore I would say that your wording 'dependant' is more prejudicial.

Well, to be factual about it, that's just not true.
Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. That's wikipedia, but if you prefer Dictionary.com Parasite: an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. I think most of us are pretty well aware that parasites are a different species from their host. Or to put it another way, do you think there's a zoologist or medical doctor in the world who would agree that the incubating young of a mammal is a parasite? I don't... I think you use the word, knowing quite well it's inaccurate, purely for it's effect.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Whether or not the law says that a foetus has bodily integrity, it does not. It is impossible for it to have bodily integrity whilst it is living inside a host. It cannot be protected for example from the woman causing harm to herself which impacts it's well being or even existence, so how is it possible for it to have bodily integrity?

But that's the thing; whether or not you agree with the law makes no difference to the law. The law defines things like rights, including the right to bodily integrity. Whether or not you wish it didn't, if the law says it does, then it does. Legislation protects a foetus from someone killing it unlawfully, just as legislation protects a woman from someone killing her unlawfully. Ultimately, it may not prevent either from being killed, but it does exact a penalty for doing so.

volchitsa

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Yep that's her name, couldn't think of it, in truth there's no point in debating people like that, their opinions are cast in stone and any evidence to the contrary just won't register.

I absolutely hate it when men come out against abortion (I'm a man myself) because we're never going to get pregnant so what right do we have to force women into having a baby if she's not ready for it. But women coming out against abortion, I have to say I'm really struggling to understand that one, is it a religious thing or what because it doesn't really make a lot of sense?

It's much like the fact that women are often the traditional "keepers" of the various FGM rituals throughout the world. I can't get my head around that, but I have to accept that some women are actively prepared to do that to little girls.

Why? Well, from extreme brainwashing to anything for a little bit of power for the,selves?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I'm afraid not; I said nothing about "adding human value" or whether it ought to be considered without values like bodily integrity and choice, that was all you.

Nor did I suggest that adding value was a deciding factor in allowing abortion or not, I said if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, it is not unreasonable to say that an unborn person has the potential to add value to society, whereas an unredeemable murderer and rapist has demonstrated the potential to remove value from society. From that perspective, it makes senses to preserve one and dispose of the other, and no consideration of bodily integrity is required at all.
If you don't approach either issue from that perspective, for instance if you approach them from Kiwis perspective of bodily integrity, then it makes sense in that instance to preserve the bodily integrity of all involved, or whatever the focus of your approach might be.

Having the potential to add value cant be a deciding factor as it doesnt move things on as to which actions are allowable to enforce this. Concerning adults we have no presumption that one adult must save the life of another adult , concerning kids , parents are not legally obliged to raise their kids, guardianship rights can be transferred. it would be inconsistent to give a fetus additional rights compared to a citizen. In a way its a medical issue that as it stands medicine is not in a position to facilitate the transfer of the abandoned guardianship rights that the mother has decided on