Abortion Discussion

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

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.

Why not? That seems entirely a matter of choice; we can choose to have it as the only factor, the deciding factor, a deciding factor, a factor. Which seems to satisfy a desire to have 'choice' as a factor too.

silverharp wrote: »

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.

Which is not to say we can't; only that we don't. Or at least, we don't legislate for it. I think we do have a general presumption that a moral adult would attempt to save the life of another adult (or child) if necessary, and that a good parent would try to raise their children if they could (and do it well, if they could).

silverharp wrote: »

it would be inconsistent to give a fetus additional rights compared to a citizen.

But it would be consistent if we enacted your above presumptions, so no problem there. Though I think I missed where someone proposed giving a foetus additional rights compared to a citizen?

silverharp wrote: »

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

I don't think guardianship is a medical issue; it's clearly a legal one. Nor do I think transferring guardianship of a foetus is much of an issue if you're aborting it?

Anyway I think you've wandered a bit wide of the mark; the idea was 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.
So as you see, there's no proposition to engage in assigning guardianship, or saving lives, or raising children. Do you want to propose something about that from the perspective of potential value to society?

Kiwi in IE

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/parasitical

Of, pertaining to, or having the characteristics or a parasite.

A foetus shares the characteristics of a parasite in that it cannot survive without a host. Therefore it is correct to say that it is engaged in a parasitical relationship, it is not however a parasite, which refers to the same survival mechanisms in a different species to the host. Until it develops past that state, it is unethical for any state to assign it rights that are seperate to, the same as, or superior to the rights of the host.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/parasitical
Of, pertaining to, or having the characteristics or a parasite.
A foetus shares the characteristics of a parasite in that it cannot survive without a host. Therefore it is correct to say that it is engaged in a parasitical relationship, it is not however a parasite, which refers to the same survival mechanisms in a different species to the host. Until it develops past that state, it is unethical for any state to assign it rights that are seperate to, the same as, or superior to the rights of the host.

But a characteristic it doesn't share is that it is not a different species from it's host. I get it; a dependent relationship is easier to identify with and feel protective of, a parasitical one evokes revulsion, as I said, it's a snarl word. If you think it takes that to prop up your point, or make you feel better about it, fair enough.

As to the ethics of assigning rights to anyone or anything; what is ethical or not is determined by the prevailing mores of society. Our society has already decided to assign a right to life to a foetus, so we appear not to have found it unethical. You yourself may feel it's immoral, but you don't seem to presenting any more argument than your disagreement to it?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Why not? That seems entirely a matter of choice; we can choose to have it as the only factor, the deciding factor, a deciding factor, a factor. Which seems to satisfy a desire to have 'choice' as a factor too.
Which is not to say we can't; only that we don't. Or at least, we don't legislate for it. I think we do have a general presumption that a moral adult would attempt to save the life of another adult (or child) if necessary, and that a good parent would try to raise their children if they could (and do it well, if they could).
But it would be consistent if we enacted your above presumptions, so no problem there. Though I think I missed where someone proposed giving a foetus additional rights compared to a citizen?
I don't think guardianship is a medical issue; it's clearly a legal one. Nor do I think transferring guardianship of a foetus is much of an issue if you're aborting it?

Anyway I think you've wandered a bit wide of the mark; the idea was 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.
So as you see, there's no proposition to engage in assigning guardianship, or saving lives, or raising children. Do you want to propose something about that from the perspective of potential value to society?

Western society has developed because it recognises that certain rights attach to individuals. Property rights , presumption of innocence , free speech, sexual freedom etc. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will goes against the woman's self ownership of her body so value has to be a secondary consideration.
Society aims to look after people in certain situations but they don't go as far as compromising bodily integrity. If a person had the only matching organ to save the life of another person it could never be legal to force the person at gunpoint to hand it over, an adult can't be forced to save the life of a citizen by compromising their body but if they must do for a foetus is giving additional rights to a foetus

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Western society has developed because it recognises that certain rights attach to individuals. Property rights , presumption of innocence , free speech, sexual freedom etc.

Well, Western societies have variously decided to give certain rights to individuals. I'd look askance at a theory that proposed societies developed because they noticed people already had rights, but feel free to expand....

silverharp wrote: »

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will goes against the woman's self ownership of her body so value has to be a secondary consideration.

I don't think so; you're assuming that a womans self ownership is a given, but it wasn't part of the proposition (being: if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society), so at best we can only admit self ownership as a secondary consideration, and to be honest I'm rather dubious of the concept, so I'm inclined not to...

silverharp wrote: »

Society aims to look after people in certain situations but they don't go as far as compromising bodily integrity.

I've already pointed out that imprisonment compromises bodily integrity, and that's practiced by most societies. Some societies even lop bits off if you misbehave, so really, societies do go as far as compromising bodily integrity. Quite a bit.

silverharp wrote: »

If a person had the only matching organ to save the life of another person it could never be legal to force the person at gunpoint to hand it over, an adult can't be forced to save the life of a citizen by compromising their body but if they must do for a foetus is giving additional rights to a foetus

But of course it could be legal to force a person, you'd just need to pass a law to say so! Not sure why you think it's relevant to the exercise, but anyway.

Kiwi in IE

Feotuses do not have an equal right to born people anyway. If I declared an intention to remove my child this jurisdiction, with the intention of having them killed elsewhere and the authorities were alerted, I would be prevented from carrying out my intentions. If I declared that I am taking a foetus to the UK with the intention of having it killed and the authorities were alerted, I would not be stopped. How does this equate to an equal right to life?

recedite

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/parasitical

Of, pertaining to, or having the characteristics or a parasite.

A foetus shares the characteristics of a parasite in that it cannot survive without a host. Therefore it is correct to say that it is engaged in a parasitical relationship, it is not however a parasite, which refers to the same survival mechanisms in a different species to the host. Until it develops past that state, it is unethical for any state to assign it rights that are seperate to, the same as, or superior to the rights of the host.

Just out of curiosity, if a foetus was transferred to an artificial womb, would you consider then that its rights were independent of the mother?
If she preferred it to be simply aborted, would she have any say in the matter once it was removed from her womb? Any ownership?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Feotuses do not have an equal right to born people anyway. If I declared an intention to remove my child this jurisdiction, with the intention of having them killed elsewhere and the authorities were alerted, I would be prevented from carrying out my intentions. If I declared that I am taking a foetus to the UK with the intention of having it killed and the authorities were alerted, I would not be stopped. How does this equate to an equal right to life?

Also they can be killed if they present a substantial risk to the mothers life, so obviously they have been granted a right to life, but not an equal one in all circumstances.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Well, Western societies have variously decided to give certain rights to individuals. I'd look askance at a theory that proposed societies developed because they noticed people already had rights, but feel free to expand....


I don't think so; you're assuming that a womans self ownership is a given, but it wasn't part of the proposition (being: if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society), so at best we can only admit self ownership as a secondary consideration, and to be honest I'm rather dubious of the concept, so I'm inclined not to...

I've already pointed out that imprisonment compromises bodily integrity, and that's practiced by most societies. Some societies even lop bits off if you misbehave, so really, societies do go as far as compromising bodily integrity. Quite a bit.
But of course it could be legal to force a person, you'd just need to pass a law to say so! Not sure why you think it's relevant to the exercise, but anyway.

Societies have changed for the better because modern societies recognise that people deserve to have rights that respect their humanity. At one stage women were property of their husband for instance . its hard to imagine that a call would be made to reverse this, as it would go against what are basically viewed as first principles of a modern society.
I don't see capital punishment as relevant here so comparing values are not relevent either. The issue is one of a person being forced to keep a foetus alive. In other situations people are not required to rent their body out or supply spare body parts to keep other people alive. Suggesting that anything can be made law is called living in a dictatorship and if a pluralist democracy tried to implement the organ sequestration act there would be riots.

Kiwi in IE

recedite wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, if a foetus was transferred to an artificial womb, would you consider then that its rights were independent of the mother?
If she preferred it to be simply aborted, would she have any say in the matter once it was removed from her womb? Any ownership?

I'm not entirely sure about this to be honest, it does change it for me in some way but would need time to think about how exactly. If she wants it removed from her body, then I believe that she should have to right to have it removed. I don't think a viable foetus should be killed, so if technology was able to dramatically change the point of viability outside the body then that is a whole new set of ethical dilemmas, and I'm really not sure what my views are there. She definately should have some say in its destiny, but whether she should order that it be terminated, I don't know.

I don't have the slightest ethical issues with on demand to 12 weeks, but I admit that as viability approaches it starts getting murky. If it can live outside its mothers body, then I believe that is when it's seperate rights should start to apply.

recedite

I don't know either.
Its a curious thing that if a birth mother is giving up a baby for adoption, she has a big say in where the baby goes and what sort of family or person it goes to.
Unless she is a surrogate mother, in which case a big effort is made to ensure she has no say and no contact.
So I think this has more to do with whether the birth mother is in a position of power or not, than any ethical considerations.

As you point out, if the offspring is independent, there is no real reason for the birth mother to have any say, any more than the father, if she has decided not to rear it herself. A decision should be made by the authorities in the best interests of the baby itself.
I suspect when/if artificial wombs are available there would still be a feeling of ownership though, the biological parents might not want their genetic offspring running around, and prefer a traditional abortion as giving more "closure". Perhaps its the same feeling some men have had in the past when they lose control of their biological offspring, ie when they have split up and he wants an abortion but she does not.

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/05/27/answer-all-questions/

5th yr religion exam question on a friend out of having an abortion

Nice to see our taxes going to good use in our schools, this was from a school in Dublin.
:rolleyes:


I gota say, if it was me in 5th year and I was handed that, I'd stand up and walk out.
Fortunately I didn't have to listen to anything in religion class as the teacher took a dislike to me in 3rd year because I asked questions so she wouldn't allow me back into class after that. Suited me.

Brian Shanahan

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

Never underestimates man's* infinite capacity for his inhumanity to his fellow man*.

*I'm talking in species terms here, naturally.

JaseBelleVie

Watching a few YouTube videos tonight, and already there are anti-abortion/pro-life ads appearing. Similar to how the "I'm Gay and I'm voting 'No'" ads appeared before the referendum.

Does someone know something? Is this the next thing on the agenda? I can't imagine the government (at least Fine Gael, anyway) wanting to tackle something even more divisive prior to a General Election.

But the appearance of these ads (and their quite forceful and aggressive message) is surely cause for concern and so on?

By the way, I'm firmly pro-choice, just so you know!

inocybe

Enda Kenny has said that there is 'no rush'. Shower of cowards the whole lot of them, interested in prolonging their income and nothing else.

obplayer

JaseBelleVie wrote: »

Watching a few YouTube videos tonight, and already there are anti-abortion/pro-life ads appearing. Similar to how the "I'm Gay and I'm voting 'No'" ads appeared before the referendum.

Does someone know something? Is this the next thing on the agenda? I can't imagine the government (at least Fine Gael, anyway) wanting to tackle something even more divisive prior to a General Election.

But the appearance of these ads (and their quite forceful and aggressive message) is surely cause for concern and so on?

By the way, I'm firmly pro-choice, just so you know!

What I find funny is that they do not consider that this apparent bias against them, 33 articles pro abortion vs 1 against they say, may be evidence that they are simply wrong.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Feotuses do not have an equal right to born people anyway. If I declared an intention to remove my child this jurisdiction, with the intention of having them killed elsewhere and the authorities were alerted, I would be prevented from carrying out my intentions. If I declared that I am taking a foetus to the UK with the intention of having it killed and the authorities were alerted, I would not be stopped. How does this equate to an equal right to life?

That's not the same as foetuses don't have any rights though is it? And I think we all acknowledge that just as children have less rights than adults, foetuses have less rights than children; you're more likely to have a chance of being prosecuted for attempting to transport your adult child against their will across an international border than you are for transporting your minor child against their will across an international border.
However, as a matter of interest, if you declared an intention to remove your child from this jurisdiction, with the intention of having them killed elsewhere and the authorities were alerted, who would prevent you from carrying out your intentions, and how? Intending to commit murder isn't illegal; I think the DPP might balk at detaining you for intending to commit murder, without evidence that you were attempting, or conspiring, to commit murder. And if there were evidence that you were attempting to commit murder it wouldn't matter whether you were travelling outside the jurisdiction to do it or not, you'd be detained.
Anyway, if it saves you some time, Volchitsa did try to put forward that argument some time ago on the thread...

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Societies have changed for the better because modern societies recognise that people deserve to have rights that respect their humanity.

Not sure about that at all, it sounds pretty biased. We think our society is better than it was in the 15th Century, but I think most of us would acknowledge there are a host of reasons for that other than the recognition that people deserve to have rights that respect their humanity; I'd rate sanitation, medicine and rapid safe travel pretty highly in that regard myself. Then there are others who believe their societies have changed for the better because they now fully implement Sharia law, which arguably ignores that people deserve to have rights that respect their humanity in favour of obedience to God. So why (or even if) societies have changed for the better would be a matter of opinion really..
But I will say that I think Irish society changed for the better when it recognised in it's foundation document that unborn people deserve to have rights that respect their humanity, and therefore prohibited killing them unlawfully.

silverharp wrote: »

At one stage women were property of their husband for instance . its hard to imagine that a call would be made to reverse this, as it would go against what are basically viewed as first principles of a modern society.

If it's hard to imagine, I suggest you look east; you'll find such calls being made quite often by members of modern societies who don't agree with your basic view of first principles. Not that the one is actually relevant to the other, but I suppose a bit of guilt by association looks like it helps your argument along, eh?

silverharp wrote: »

I don't see capital punishment as relevant here so comparing values are not relevent either. The issue is one of a person being forced to keep a foetus alive.

You must have forgotten (again) what the initial premise was then; if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society

silverharp wrote: »

In other situations people are not required to rent their body out or supply spare body parts to keep other people alive. Suggesting that anything can be made law is called living in a dictatorship and if a pluralist democracy tried to implement the organ sequestration act there would be riots.

So... anyone who suggests that anything can be made law is living in a dictatorship? I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense at all. A number of people on this thread have suggested things could be made law, and they obviously don't live in a dictatorship. Sorry, that sounds like nonsense.
Anyway, if a pluralist democracy tried to implement an organ sequestration act, who would riot? For a pluralist democracy to implement something, it must have arrived at a democratic determination to do so; if the people are already resolved on the course, why would they then riot?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Not sure about that at all, it sounds pretty biased. We think our society is better than it was in the 15th Century, but I think most of us would acknowledge there are a host of reasons for that other than the recognition that people deserve to have rights that respect their humanity; I'd rate sanitation, medicine and rapid safe travel pretty highly in that regard myself. Then there are others who believe their societies have changed for the better because they now fully implement Sharia law, which arguably ignores that people deserve to have rights that respect their humanity in favour of obedience to God. So why (or even if) societies have changed for the better would be a matter of opinion really..
But I will say that I think Irish society changed for the better when it recognised in it's foundation document that unborn people deserve to have rights that respect their humanity, and therefore prohibited killing them unlawfully.
If it's hard to imagine, I suggest you look east; you'll find such calls being made quite often by members of modern societies who don't agree with your basic view of first principles. Not that the one is actually relevant to the other, but I suppose a bit of guilt by association looks like it helps your argument along, eh?

You must have forgotten (again) what the initial premise was then; if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society

So... anyone who suggests that anything can be made law is living in a dictatorship? I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense at all. A number of people on this thread have suggested things could be made law, and they obviously don't live in a dictatorship. Sorry, that sounds like nonsense.
Anyway, if a pluralist democracy tried to implement an organ sequestration act, who would riot? For a pluralist democracy to implement something, it must have arrived at a democratic determination to do so; if the people are already resolved on the course, why would they then riot?

Leaving aside technology there is a reason western values are superior to say somewhere like Saudi Arabia. Its down to values and rules that respect the individual. Based on that I could predict that no western society would try to implement the organ sequestration act or for instance that homosexuality would be criminalised again. For it to happen the population would have to have converted to Islam or some extreme evangelical church or otherwise have en masse taken on some extreme political idiology. Or if we look at countries like Uganda that introduced a watered down version of the kill the gays law, without anymore information I could judge that its going to be an inferior society ignoring standard of living because it sets out to attack minorities.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Leaving aside technology there is a reason western values are superior to say somewhere like Saudi Arabia.

I can certainly see why someone from a western society would say their values are superior to somewhere like Saudi Arabia. The thing is, I can also see why someone from from Saudi Arabia would say their values are superior to western societies. So it's a bit 50/50 really isn't it?

silverharp wrote: »

Its down to values and rules that respect the individual. Based on that I could predict that no western society would try to implement the organ sequestration act or for instance that homosexuality would be criminalised again.

But given that the the premise is; if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, then you can predict that any such western (or otherwise) society stands quite a good chance of voting for your organ sequestration act (without rioting). Whether or not they might criminalise homosexuality probably depends on the argument you make for it's value or lack thereof to society, but I'd say you've wandered a little astray there of the point.

silverharp wrote: »

For it to happen the population would have to have converted to Islam or some extreme evangelical church or otherwise have en masse taken on some extreme political idiology.

Are you saying they'd need to do something like perhaps approach issues from the perspective of potential value to society? In that case wer're grand, because that was the premise I set out.

silverharp wrote: »

Or if we look at countries like Uganda that introduced a watered down version of the kill the gays law, without anymore information I could judge that its going to be an inferior society ignoring standard of living because it sets out to attack minorities.

I can't help feeling you're starting to focus a bit on the whole homosexuality thing. Is it because you think the general feel good factor of the referendum bouys up your point in some way, or are you trying to say homosexuality is actually in some way relevant to the notion that f 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, and that 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

Absolam wrote: »

I can certainly see why someone from a western society would say their values are superior to somewhere like Saudi Arabia. The thing is, I can also see why someone from from Saudi Arabia would say their values are superior to western societies. So it's a bit 50/50 really isn't it?

Im sure they would but their values are based on a fictional religion. There are albinos in africa that are killed for religious reasons, Im sure they might say their culture is superior but there would be no evidence to back up their actions

Absolam wrote: »

But given that the the premise is; if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, then you can predict that any such western (or otherwise) society stands quite a good chance of voting for your organ sequestration act (without rioting). Whether or not they might criminalise homosexuality probably depends on the argument you make for it's value or lack thereof to society, but I'd say you've wandered a little astray there of the point.

I wouldnt approach either issue based on value to society as "value to society" isnt a basis for law or ethics.

Absolam wrote: »

Are you saying they'd need to do something like perhaps approach issues from the perspective of potential value to society? In that case wer're grand, because that was the premise I set out.
I can't help feeling you're starting to focus a bit on the whole homosexuality thing. Is it because you think the general feel good factor of the referendum bouys up your point in some way, or are you trying to say homosexuality is actually in some way relevant to the notion that f 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, and that from that perspective, it makes senses to preserve one and dispose of the other, and no consideration of bodily integrity is required at all?

again value to society is not relevant to a right to live or the right to take away a life to to curtail important freedoms. It doesnt give a guiding principle which is why important laws are not utility based.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Im sure they would but their values are based on a fictional religion. There are albinos in africa that are killed for religious reasons, Im sure they might say their culture is superior but there would be no evidence to back up their actions

So, their values are as valid to them as yours are to you? I know you think your values are superior, obviously. Though you have to admit, you might be biased.

silverharp wrote: »

I wouldnt approach either issue based on value to society as "value to society" isnt a basis for law or ethics.

Ah, but then you'd be forgetting; the basis of the premise is if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society.

silverharp wrote: »

again value to society is not relevant to a right to live or the right to take away a life to to curtail important freedoms. It doesnt give a guiding principle which is why important laws are not utility based.

But it is fundamentally relevant to a discussion of the proposition "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, and that 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

Absolam wrote: »

So, their values are as valid to them as yours are to you?
Ah, but then you'd be forgetting; the basis of the premise is if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society.
But it is fundamentally relevant to a discussion of the proposition "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, and that from that perspective, it makes senses to preserve one and dispose of the other, and no consideration of bodily integrity is required at all.".

Their views might be valid to them but it would be impossible for them to justify their ideas to us as there would be no evidence to back up their religious basis for their actions.

If I do approach things from your prospective your point is valid to a point as an observational calculation but there has to be other considerations such as bodily integrity, freedom of choice. A general proposition that people have to compromise bodily integrity to add value would be frowned on to say the least , as a theotectical example forced donations of eggs for stem cell based medicine that would cure killer diseases? Ethically it would wrong regardless of the potential gains. Society would have to find ways of asking or incentifising.

Cabaal

Just something that bothers me about many "pro-life" people,

If you believe that a fetus is equal to that of an actual born baby and you believe that an abortion is murder, then why aren't you lobbying the goverment like crazy to make it a criminal offense for women to travel to the UK or other countrys for an abortion?

Surely women based on your own logic should be charged with murder, or at the very least I'm sure you could attach some sentence of say 10 years to the offense.

Just think, you could have 20k women in the last 5 years jailed, to hell with the circumstances of the abortion. To hell if it was a pregnancy out of rape, to hell if it was a fetal abnormality. These women did awful things in your eye's and they did something thats illegal in Ireland, you clearly need to ensure that these women are used as a warning to others when they do these things.

So, why aren't you pushing the goverment to charge these women on return or to physically stop and detain them from traveling?

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

So, why aren't you pushing the goverment to charge these women on return or to physically stop and detain them from traveling?

Because of the same reasons they won't campaign for born children to get help or to ban IVF treatment. It doesn't suit their agenda.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

Because of the same reasons they won't campaign for born children to get help or to ban IVF treatment. It doesn't suit their agenda.

Thats my thinking on it alright, but I'd be interested to hear from somebody who does consider fetus = baby or abortion = murder.

My belief is they won't lobby the goverment because deep down they know that this will turn a majority of the country against them,

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats my thinking on it alright, but I'd be interested to hear from somebody who does consider fetus = baby or abortion = murder.

My belief is they won't lobby the goverment because deep down they know that this will turn a majority of the country against them,

Or because it isn't a battle they will win, and they know this. Their time and energy is better spend shouting about women in Ireland and de baybies, rather than trying to stop them going elsewhere for medical treatment.

PopePalpatine

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats my thinking on it alright, but I'd be interested to hear from somebody who does consider fetus = baby or abortion = murder.

My belief is they won't lobby the goverment because deep down they know that this will turn a majority of the country against them,

I'm sure you'll find plenty in t'udder forum.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Their views might be valid to them but it would be impossible for them to justify their ideas to us as there would be no evidence to back up their religious basis for their actions.

It seems just as likely that you would find it equally impossible to justify your ideas to them too though, so your still in pretty much equal footing in that regard?

silverharp wrote: »

If I do approach things from your prospective your point is valid to a point as an observational calculation but there has to be other considerations such as bodily integrity, freedom of choice.

Which I didn't say there couldn't be; only that they are not part of the proposition. So adding them alters the proposition, making it a different proposition. Feel free to propose it if you want to discuss it?

silverharp wrote: »

A general proposition that people have to compromise bodily integrity to add value would be frowned on to say the least , as a theotectical example forced donations of eggs for stem cell based medicine that would cure killer diseases?

Again, that just depends on whether your proposition is that society values adding value to society, or preserving bodily integrity, or if both then which more.

silverharp wrote: »

Ethically it would wrong regardless of the potential gains. Society would have to find ways of asking or incentifising.

That, again, depends entirely on the ethics of the society you're positing. You could posit a society where it is unethical not to volunteer genetic material for the advancement of society, if you wanted.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Just something that bothers me about many "pro-life" people,
If you believe that a fetus is equal to that of an actual born baby and you believe that an abortion is murder, then why aren't you lobbying the goverment like crazy to make it a criminal offense for women to travel to the UK or other countrys for an abortion?
Surely women based on your own logic should be charged with murder, or at the very least I'm sure you could attach some sentence of say 10 years to the offense.
Just think, you could have 20k women in the last 5 years jailed, to hell with the circumstances of the abortion. To hell if it was a pregnancy out of rape, to hell if it was a fetal abnormality. These women did awful things in your eye's and they did something thats illegal in Ireland, you clearly need to ensure that these women are used as a warning to others when they do these things.
So, why aren't you pushing the goverment to charge these women on return or to physically stop and detain them from traveling?

I think it goes back to the point; just because someone believes one thing, it doesn't necessarily mean they believe something you think they ought to, and that just might be why they're not doing what you think they should.
I'm surprised Lazygal hasn't pointed out that she offered pretty much the same point about a year ago, but didn't really get any traction with it. Pretty sure she was using the same "de baybies" snarl words back then as well. You yourself participated in the discussion, so you might remember it.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

It seems just as likely that you would find it equally impossible to justify your ideas to them too though, so your still in pretty much equal footing in that regard?

thats not true as there is ample evidence of primitive societies abandoning older practices when education is introduced. How many Europeans could be convinced to kill Albinos for good luck? but Im sure you are aware that is it possible to judge societies and for both groups to agree.

Absolam wrote: »

Which I didn't say there couldn't be; only that they are not part of the proposition. So adding them alters the proposition, making it a different proposition. Feel free to propose it if you want to discuss it?

you have lost me, if you want to restate this point again from scratch Ill look at it again

Absolam wrote: »

Again, that just depends on whether your proposition is that society values adding value to society, or preserving bodily integrity, or if both then which more.

but history of the development of western culture is clear that preserving bodily integrity is an essential ingredient in an open open and free society which is why slavery is illegal or why societies do not demand that people donate spare organs or even blood for that matter even though it might be possible to "calculate" a positive utility

Absolam wrote: »

That, again, depends entirely on the ethics of the society you're positing. You could posit a society where it is unethical not to volunteer genetic material for the advancement of society, if you wanted.

lots of things could be unethical, it only matters when "frowned upon" become a law. take a simple issue like blood donation I mentioned above, no western society forces the general public to donate blood. People are asked to volunteer and that its the right thing to do or some such language.
Only a dictatorship would see things as you do.