Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
Often does not mean always in any dictionary I own. The other users however are having an issue with the over dissection of posts you engage in so I shall switch back to straight prose as I am more interested in the comfort of my fellow posters than assisting another user in eroding their own credibility. I find I agree with them too, I am not seeing anything in any of your replies that actually engages with my points, rather than simply questioning the motivation for making them, the wording I use while making them in your pretense that a change of words means I am changing my points, the emotions you imagine I feel while making them, misrepresenting what I said, or how many other posters or posts you personally feel my points actually apply to.
So for the benefit of anyone who is actually interested in dealing with the substance of the points I can but repeat myself again in this regard, and layout once more the points I have made (unchanged despite misrepresentation since the start of the month). My position on abortion is simply to consider whether the entity in question, at the stage of being aborted, has any attribute or basis upon which we should assign it Rights. Notably in this context the "Right To Life". That some people think there are souls in the egg is irrelevant to me given they have offered absolutely no substantiation of this claim. That DNA and Zygotes are taxonomically "Human" is similarly lacking in relevance as any leap from there to "Human Rights" is simply a non-sequitur. And finally the "potential" argument on what DNA/Zygotes might be, or have the potential to be, in the future is irrelevant to me too because for me abortion is about what rights the entity has at the time of the abortion, not what it might have in the future.
Perhaps there are other arguments someone might wish to put forward but I do not expect them here given a) the thread appears to be by a large majority pro-choice and b) I have sought other arguments from Anti Choice Campaigners on and off line for no short amount of time and been offered nothing at all. But I remain ever open to hearing them should someone wish to offer one.0 -
Is there any difference at all between how you would treat a human embryo and how you would treat a fish embryo then?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »That DNA and Zygotes are taxonomically "Human" is similarly lacking in relevance as any leap from there to "Human Rights" is simply a non-sequitur. And finally the "potential" argument on what DNA/Zygotes might be, or have the potential to be, in the future is irrelevant to me too because for me abortion is about what rights the entity has at the time of the abortion, not what it might have in the future.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
On the plus side, we have cut the average word count per post right down :pac:0
-
-
I agree, often doesn't mean always, though in fairness often doesn't mean never either, and never is the sum of current evidence. I too have noticed some users dislike getting into specifics, though the posters are generally of less interest to me than the posts themselves.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Often does not mean always in any dictionary I own. The other users however are having an issue with the over dissection of posts you engage in so I shall switch back to straight prose as I am more interested in the comfort of my fellow posters than assisting another user in eroding their own credibility. I find I agree with them too, I am not seeing anything in any of your replies that actually engages with my points, rather than simply questioning the motivation for making them, the wording I use while making them in your pretense that a change of words means I am changing my points, the emotions you imagine I feel while making them, misrepresenting what I said, or how many other posters or posts you personally feel my points actually apply to.
Leaving aside discussion of the variations you've introduced since you made your points, the flaw in this argument is that the taxonomical description of human is not in the least lacking in relevance; it is an absolute prerequisite to the assignment of human rights. If we substitute the taxanomical description of dog (yes I know neither is a strictly biological taxanomic term), then no one would even consider the possibility of human rights; we'd be talking about animal rights instead.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So for the benefit of anyone who is actually interested in dealing with the substance of the points I can but repeat myself again in this regard, and layout once more the points I have made (unchanged despite misrepresentation since the start of the month). My position on abortion is simply to consider whether the entity in question, at the stage of being aborted, has any attribute or basis upon which we should assign it Rights. Notably in this context the "Right To Life". That some people think there are souls in the egg is irrelevant to me given they have offered absolutely no substantiation of this claim. That DNA and Zygotes are taxonomically "Human" is similarly lacking in relevance as any leap from there to "Human Rights" is simply a non-sequitur. And finally the "potential" argument on what DNA/Zygotes might be, or have the potential to be, in the future is irrelevant to me too because for me abortion is about what rights the entity has at the time of the abortion, not what it might have in the future.
The idea of a leap from human to human rights as a non sequitur is equally devoid of merit; we can quite easily say we choose to assign all human rights to all things taxanomically human if we want. The conclusion is not necessarily prohibited by the premise, regardless of how ridiculous or lacking in practicability such an assignment might be due to other factors.
We afford human rights to a human adult, we afford human rights to a human child. We afford them different human rights, despite them both being human, because being human is not necessarily the only attribute which might be considered in order for different human rights to be assigned, yet your point fails to allow for this, though posters on the thread have been continually putting forward throughout the thread various propositions for what those attributes ought to be in their opinion.
Regardless, there is nothing inherently wrong in the proposition that if something is human, we should confer on it a right to life as the most basic recognition of the fact that it is a member of our species. You may argue over whether it is simply human (being a descriptive adjective for the material it is composed of, as might be applied to a DNA string), or whether the term a human (or even a human being, or human person, etc) must only apply to a member of the species which has passed some developmental milestone, such as cell differentiation, or the capacity for consciousness, or birth, or the age of majority. These are additional characteristics beyond "human = human rights" which to be fair have formed the bulk of the discussion (particularly developmental milstones) on abortion to date on the thread (when we have actually been discussing abortion), but they're notably absent from your assertions.
Finally, I'd question the notion that "the "potential" argument on what DNA/Zygotes might be, or have the potential to be, in the future is irrelevant to me too because for me abortion is about what rights the entity has at the time of the abortion, not what it might have in the future." is all that accurate. Currently the entity has a right to life, which is why abortion is not permitted except in specified circumstances, so if you wish to overturn that circumstance, the reasoning behind it probably is relevant to you when it comes to arguing against it. I'm not convinced a large proportion of those who support the current position do so because of the "potential" argument on what DNA/Zygotes might be, or have the potential to be, in the future, but if you want to change their minds the argument probably is relevant to you.0 -
Finally, I'd question the notion that "the "potential" argument on what DNA/Zygotes might be, or have the potential to be, in the future is irrelevant to me too because for me abortion is about what rights the entity has at the time of the abortion, not what it might have in the future." is all that accurate. Currently the entity has a right to life, which is why abortion is not permitted except in specified circumstances, so if you wish to overturn that circumstance, the reasoning behind it probably is relevant to you when it comes to arguing against it. I'm not convinced a large proportion of those who support the current position do so because of the "potential" argument on what DNA/Zygotes might be, or have the potential to be, in the future, but if you want to change their minds the argument probably is relevant to you.
I'm not sure why you're here zigging from "zygotes" to "the entity" and back to "zygotes", but per the "frozen embryos" case and the PoLDPA, zygotes are necessarily outside of the present legal right."unborn", in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman;0 -
Is there any difference at all between how you would treat a human embryo and how you would treat a fish embryo then?
For me, yes. There's a distinction between the question "what entities have inherent (or indeed arbitrary assigned) 'rights'?", and "what's within the bounds of reproductive ethics?", or indeed "what's good public policy?"
For example, fish embryos are potentially simply private property, and able to be freely bought and sold (unless it's a protected species, and so on). I don't think one would want that to ever be the case with human embryos -- at the very least not without oversight and regulation.0 -
Advertisement
-
It was nozzferrahhtoos choice of phrasing rather than mine, but in terms of entities that might be aborted if legislation (or more to the point the Constitution) were different, I'd agree frozen embryos would certainly fall outside the remit of the current POLDPA legislation, as well as the common concept of abortion (unless they were implanted in a woman first).alaimacerc wrote: »I'm not sure why you're here zigging from "zygotes" to "the entity" and back to "zygotes", but per the "frozen embryos" case and the PoLDPA, zygotes are necessarily outside of the present legal right.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo used the phrase, but the (apparent) claim that they presented had legal protection was yours.It was nozzferrahhtoos choice of phrasing rather than mine, but in terms of entities that might be aborted if legislation (or more to the point the Constitution) were different, I'd agree frozen embryos would certainly fall outside the remit of the current POLDPA legislation, as well as the common concept of abortion (unless they were implanted in a woman first).
The PoLDPA means they fall outside of the legal concept of abortion, since that repeals the previous legislation. Not even the self-representing electricians and gardeners of this world seemed to think that'd be challengeable as inconsistent with anyone/thing's constitutional rights.
Separately, the "frozen embryos" judgement had already held that this was the case, at least within the scope of that judgement.0 -
Well no, my claim was that the entity nozzferrahhtoo was referring to has a right to life, which is why abortion is not permitted except in specified circumstances, so if he wishes to overturn that, the reasoning behind it probably is relevant to him when it comes to arguing against it.alaimacerc wrote: »nozzferrahhtoo used the phrase, but the (apparent) claim that they presented had legal protection was yours.
The POLDPA is not where that right to life is asserted; it's asserted in the Constitution.
I'm not sure what you're saying there; the POLDPA doesn't provide a legal concept of abortion, nor does the Constitution. I posted about the common concept of abortion, since I didn't think a discussion of whether frozen embryos being destroyed 'counts' as abortion is likely to be all that relevant to your question about nozzferrahhtoo's phrasing.alaimacerc wrote: »The PoLDPA means they fall outside of the legal concept of abortion, since that repeals the previous legislation. Not even the self-representing electricians and gardeners of this world seemed to think that'd be challengeable as inconsistent with anyone/thing's constitutional rights.
If you're referring to M.R. v T.R. and Others [2006], I think the finding was that the frozen embryo wasn't 'unborn' for the purposes of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, rather than the POLDPA.alaimacerc wrote: »Separately, the "frozen embryos" judgement had already held that this was the case, at least within the scope of that judgement.
[EDIT] Apologies; what you were saying is that based on the definition put forward in the POLDPA zygotes (regardless of their situation) fall outside the legal concept of unborn due to not being implanted, rather than frozen embryos. Which is a fair point0 -
Yes. Which claim is, as I just pointed out, incorrect. Zygotes are not "the unborn" in law, either in the PoLDPA, or the constitution. Is there some other source of such a "right" that I'm missing?Well no, my claim was that the entity nozzferrahhtoo was referring to has a right to life, [...]
It's repealing the pre-existing law on "procuring miscarriage". It establishes an offence of "destruction of unborn human life". It sets out circumstances in which it is "lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended." Is your point merely that it doesn't actually use the word 'abortion'?[...] the POLDPA doesn't provide a legal concept of abortion, [...]
I have no "question about nozzferrahhtoo's phrasing". I offered a correction to your apparent claim about zygotic right to life. Are you acknowledging this? Or merely endeavouring to make everything that bit less apparent?I posted about the common concept of abortion, since I didn't think a discussion of whether frozen embryos being destroyed 'counts' as abortion is likely to be all that relevant to your question about nozzferrahhtoo's phrasing.
That's precisely my point. Hence the word "and" between my mentions of the two things.If you're referring to M.R. v T.R. and Others [2006], I think the finding was that the frozen embryo wasn't 'unborn' for the purposes of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, rather than the POLDPA.0 -
Nope; if the entity being referred to at the time of abortion was a zygote, it wouldn't have the protection of being unborn. Then again, it wouldn't be aborted either, since the morning after pill which is the only method that would be used to remove a zygote is a contraceptive rather than an abortifacient.alaimacerc wrote: »Yes. Which claim is, as I just pointed out, incorrect. Zygotes are not "the unborn" in law, either in the PoLDPA, or the constitution. Is there some other source of such a "right" that I'm missing?
So.. either he was talking about a zygote which cannot be aborted, or an entity which can be aborted which cannot be a zygote.
Yes, yes, yes, and no. You said "The PoLDPA means they fall outside of the legal concept of abortion" (and I took the 'they' you were referring to as frozen embryos). And whilst the POLDPA does do all that you said, just as I said, it doesn't actually provide a legal concept of abortion, a different thing from not using the word abortion. Though it does provide a legal definition for 'unborn', which does exclude a zygote.alaimacerc wrote: »It's repealing the pre-existing law on "procuring miscarriage". It establishes an offence of "destruction of unborn human life". It sets out circumstances in which it is "lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended." Is your point merely that it doesn't actually use the word 'abortion'?
You asked why I was here zigging from "zygotes" to "the entity" and back to "zygotes", and I replied it was nozzferrahhtoos choice of phrasing, which it was; I simply repeated it. My own assertion wasn't a claim about zygotic right to life; I stuck with entity. "Currently the entity has a right to life, which is why abortion is not permitted except in specified circumstances". Mostly because I had specifically said previously that I wasn't talking about a zygote.alaimacerc wrote: »I have no "question about nozzferrahhtoo's phrasing". I offered a correction to your apparent claim about zygotic right to life. Are you acknowledging this? Or merely endeavouring to make everything that bit less apparent?
Leaving aside the absence of the word "and" between your mentions of the two things, I don't disagree; the judgement found that frozen embryos aren't unborn, and the POLDPA excludes zygotes from its' definition of unborn.alaimacerc wrote: »That's precisely my point. Hence the word "and" between my mentions of the two things.
And I'd add that along with the destruction of frozen embryos, the destruction/removal of a zygote would also fall outside the common concept of abortion, notwithstanding the existence of some less than common opposing views.0 -
It's not exactly a wild thought experiment to posit the case where a secondary mechanism of action for some existing method of (emergency or otherwise) contraception is found to be "contragesive". Or some new such EC is discovered. (Or to broaden the point marginally in conceptual scope -- though significantly in time -- pre-implantation early embryos in general.) It'd not be a "termination of pregnancy", and hence not an "abortion" if you regard that as synonymous (and I would). But the Vatican wouldn't be in agreement on that point, which would be of some minor local interest.Nope; if the entity being referred to at the time of abortion was a zygote, it wouldn't have the protection of being unborn. Then again, it wouldn't be aborted either, since the morning after pill which is the only method that would be used to remove a zygote is a contraceptive rather than an abortifacient.
Whether we should change the thread title to "Abortion (Catholic definition) discussion" or "Reproductive Rights discussion" is perhaps another day's work.
I thought it was clear from my first reply I was speaking about zygotes in general. I was then reading across the two provisions the better so to do.You said "The PoLDPA means they fall outside of the legal concept of abortion" (and I took the 'they' you were referring to as frozen embryos).
If you're going to argue there was previously no legal concept of "destruction of unborn human life" and "lawful ending of unborn human life" (but there is now), and there is now no legal concept of "procuring a miscarriage" (but there was then), and at no time was there any "legal concept of abortion" at all, knock yourself out. I think I'm not speaking so loosely as to lose anyone if I say the "concept of abortion" is implemented in law by first the one, and then the other.And whilst the POLDPA does do all that you said, just as I said, it doesn't actually provide a legal concept of abortion, a different thing from not using the word abortion.
... then which entity? Given that this was in the middle of a paragraph starting with talk of "zygotes", ending with talk of "zygotes", and offering no other context or definition for "entity" otherwise?My own assertion wasn't a claim about zygotic right to life; I stuck with entity.
Oh, but let's not!Leaving aside the absence of the word "and" between your mentions of the two things [...]
Bold added.alaimacerc wrote: »I'm not sure why you're here zigging from "zygotes" to "the entity" and back to "zygotes", but per the "frozen embryos" case and the PoLDPA, zygotes are necessarily outside of the present legal right.
And I largely don't disagree with that. But the legal one is in this case pretty precise, whereas "common concept" is fairly wobbly around the edges. (Prof John Bonnar appearing on Prime Time to say something to the effect of 'it's not an abortion if a Top Medic like myself says it isn't' springs to mind.)And I'd add that along with the destruction of frozen embryos, the destruction/removal of a zygote would also fall outside the common concept of abortion, notwithstanding the existence of some less than common opposing views.0 -
All novel notions... but maybe not what nozzferrahhtoo had in mind.alaimacerc wrote: »It's not exactly a wild thought experiment to posit the case where a secondary mechanism of action for some existing method of (emergency or otherwise) contraception is found to be "contragesive". Or some new such EC is discovered. (Or to broaden the point marginally in conceptual scope -- though significantly in time -- pre-implantation early embryos in general.) It'd not be a "termination of pregnancy", and hence not an "abortion" if you regard that as synonymous (and I would). But the Vatican wouldn't be in agreement on that point, which would be of some minor local interest. Whether we should change the thread title to "Abortion (Catholic definition) discussion" or "Reproductive Rights discussion" is perhaps another day's work.
I'm sure you did, whilst I thought it was clear you were talking about frozen embryos until I reread your post, hence my apologetic edit.alaimacerc wrote: »I thought it was clear from my first reply I was speaking about zygotes in general. I was then reading across the two provisions the better so to do.
Not really; what I said was the POLDPA doesn't provide a legal concept of abortion, which was the sum of what I intended.alaimacerc wrote: »If you're going to argue there was previously no legal concept of "destruction of unborn human life" and "lawful ending of unborn human life" (but there is now), and there is now no legal concept of "procuring a miscarriage" (but there was then), and at no time was there any "legal concept of abortion" at all, knock yourself out.
I wouldn't say it's implemented in law if it's not specified in law; it might be tricky to even conclude that a legal definition of abortion is inferred by the combination. Why would there need to be a legal definition of abortion anyway?alaimacerc wrote: »I think I'm not speaking so loosely as to lose anyone if I say the "concept of abortion" is implemented in law by first the one, and then the other.
Well, in my statement, any entity with a right to life would suffice. But it was in the context of what I was asking nozzferrahhtoo earlier: "I wasn't talking about a zygote though; I said if you're affording rights to (or at least, would be affording rights to, if it were up to you) something based on what it is now, how do you do it? What rights would you afford based on what aspects of it's current existence? I was talking about something, by which we can mean any thing; you've said that in the context of equivocating over whether an entity should be afforded rights or not, you do so based on what the entity is NOW, not what someone imagines it MIGHT be in the future., so I'm asking what entities you think should be afforded what rights in the NOW, based on what criteria."alaimacerc wrote: »... then which entity? Given that this was in the middle of a paragraph starting with talk of "zygotes", ending with talk of "zygotes", and offering no other context or definition for "entity" otherwise?
But no 'and' between this thingalaimacerc wrote: »Bold added.
and this thingalaimacerc wrote: »The PoLDPA means they fall outside of the legal concept of abortion, since that repeals the previous legislation. Not even the self-representing electricians and gardeners of this world seemed to think that'd be challengeable as inconsistent with anyone/thing's constitutional rights.
Which I guess just shows that greater specificity may actually help in making things more meaningfully specific.alaimacerc wrote: »Separately, the "frozen embryos" judgement had already held that this was the case, at least within the scope of that judgement.
I'm not convinced there is a legal definition, let alone a precise one. You're inferring there is one, and I don't think such an inference could really be considered to have any legal standing, not least because it doesn't serve an apparent legal purpose?alaimacerc wrote: »And I largely don't disagree with that. But the legal one is in this case pretty precise, whereas "common concept" is fairly wobbly around the edges. (Prof John Bonnar appearing on Prime Time to say something to the effect of 'it's not an abortion if a Top Medic like myself says it isn't' springs to mind.)0 -
It is nice of you to leave aside the variances given there was none. As I said I might have changed my wording, but my points have remained unchanged since the beginning. I disagree that the taxonomy is that relevant however. It is only relevant in the most pedantic of ways as a first step in the conversation. But that is about as relevant as pointing out that the first step in debate, is breathing. Clearly when we are assigning human rights, we are doing so to something that is taxonomically human, but that does not change the fact that pointing out that this, that, or the other happens to be taxonomically human is an irrelance as a useful starting point in the discussion.
You end your post by declaring that "currently the entity has a right to life". And that is simply the assumption I do not share. I see no reason why a zygote has a right to life. Nor have you provided one aside from mere assertion. If you are merely declaring that it has that right in currently law however then sure, I never questioned that or referred to that. Ever. I am merely talking about my position on abortion and why I hold it. Mine personally. Nothing more. And for me, I see no reason whatsoever, much less from anyone on this thread, for suggesting a zygote, or string of DNA, should have a right to life. That it legally already may do, has nothing to do with my opinion or why I hold it.Is there any difference at all between how you would treat a human embryo and how you would treat a fish embryo then?
Not particularly no. But I do not "treat" them at all really. I have nothing to do with either of them. I support wholly, for example, stem cell research and other research on early stage human development. And I have no moral qualms of any kind about the destruction of embryos that may occur in some of our fertility and conception medical treatment facilities either. They are simply an ethical non-entity for me and will likely remain so until such time as someone offers me an argument for affording them ethical concern.
I suppose the only caveat would be that there is clearly a difference in how I treat the host, so vicariously through that there might be some specific differences in how the embryo is treated. A mother has rights, a mother fish does not.
But your question is vague so my reply is also necessarily vague too. So without knowing the specifics behind your question I can not really be sure I have answered it really.0 -
I'd say quite the opposite; it is the essential starting point in starting the discussion as it rules out everything that we agree to be not human.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It is nice of you to leave aside the variances given there was none. As I said I might have changed my wording, but my points have remained unchanged since the beginning. I disagree that the taxonomy is that relevant however. It is only relevant in the most pedantic of ways as a first step in the conversation. But that is about as relevant as pointing out that the first step in debate, is breathing. Clearly when we are assigning human rights, we are doing so to something that is taxonomically human, but that does not change the fact that pointing out that this, that, or the other happens to be taxonomically human is an irrelance as a useful starting point in the discussion.
Well, I said the entity because I quite specifically pointed out that I wasn't discussing a zygote. As has been a recurring issue throughout the last few pages, I on the one hand have repeated that no one appears to be asserting that a zygote has human rights, you have repeated that you oppose anyone who asserts a zygote has a right to life. It seems pretty obvious that you have no one to argue against, and we can probably move on?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You end your post by declaring that "currently the entity has a right to life". And that is simply the assumption I do not share. I see no reason why a zygote has a right to life. Nor have you provided one aside from mere assertion. If you are merely declaring that it has that right in currently law however then sure, I never questioned that or referred to that. Ever. I am merely talking about my position on abortion and why I hold it. Mine personally. Nothing more. And for me, I see no reason whatsoever, much less from anyone on this thread, for suggesting a zygote, or string of DNA, should have a right to life. That it legally already may do, has nothing to do with my opinion or why I hold it.0 -
No I still see it as irrelevant, or at least so obvious as to not warrant discussion. Clearly whatever we assign human rights to, is going to be taxonomically human. But something being taxonomically human is not itself a useful leaping point for assigning something human rights. All the discussion is still laid out to be had.
And as I said I am happy to make my points here. If you want to address them then have at it. If you merely want to equivocate over who they might apply to, if anyone, then you are on your own. You can "move on" any time you wish.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Any yet you're offering debate on whether human rights apply to dna and zygotes; which are essentially only taxanomically human.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No I still see it as irrelevant, or at least so obvious as to not warrant discussion. Clearly whatever we assign human rights to, is going to be taxonomically human. But something being taxonomically human is not itself a useful leaping point for assigning something human rights. All the discussion is still laid out to be had.
As to who your points apply to, I'm happy to leave that to you. As to who human rights apply to, I think that might be the substance of the debate to date, so there may be some equivocationnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And as I said I am happy to make my points here. If you want to address them then have at it. If you merely want to equivocate over who they might apply to, if anyone, then you are on your own. You can "move on" any time you wish.
0 -
Nice of you to catch up with what the debate is. Yes I think the entire debate of abortion is about what human rights apply to. When they "kick in" so to speak. At what point in the process is there a useful and coherent argument for affording the entity in question Human Rights. I think it so obvious as to be irrelevant that whatever stage we assign them to will be human in taxonomy. But that something is human in taxonomy is not that useful a starting point as it is simply plainly obvious.
There are many people against abortion clearly. And despite innumerable discussions with them I am still unaware of a single useful argument against it. If they think a string of DNA, or a zygote, or some other early stage embryo is deserving of human rights then ok, but I am still waiting to hear why. And clearly "Oh but its human DNA!" or "Oh but it has the potential to be a human person" later in the process are not the kind of arguments that are going to do it for me.0 -
Aw, now that's just being mean. And mean just for the sake of it to.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Nice of you to catch up with what the debate is.
That might just be because you're for abortion though.... and you don't find arguments against abortion useful.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »There are many people against abortion clearly. And despite innumerable discussions with them I am still unaware of a single useful argument against it.0 -
Again I will not be addressing anymore you imagining the motivation behind what I write and why I write it. You are free to imagine that I do not see arguments against abortion useful because I am simply biased towards abortion. But imagining is all you are doing and once again you are addressing the poster and your imagined motivations, rather than the substance of anything I have written.
I see no useful arguments against abortion because none have been offered to me. Simple as that. Not because I am particularly invested in Abortion and hence have some magical brain filter. If you are aware of any by all means lay them out for me. But I can not ignore what is not there to be ignored. And as I said the sum total of the arguments I have been offered thus far have been the linguistic trickery of Jumping from Human Taxonomy to assigning Human Rights based on nothing. That and, I suppose I might as well add, the people who simply show gorey pictures of abortions in order to emotionally turn one off the idea of it. Something that also fails to work on me because I do not think the ethics of a medical procedure is predicated on how pretty the procedures or results of it look.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,404 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 17138
And we're back to the women are pushed into abortion narrative. Pro-life folks complaining about the phrase 'incompatible with life'.A GROUP REPRESENTING parents whose children had or have fatal foetal abnormalities is calling for the phrase ‘incompatible with life’ to be discontinued.
Independent TD Mattie McGrath has drafted a bill attempting to have the phrase removed from official medical terminology.
Spokesperson Tracy Harkin said parents with children who are deemed incompatiable with life are “pushed toward one route” – abortion.
Parents are being led to believe their children are just a freak of nature, like monsters, that they’re not fully human. And this is so wrong in this day and age.
Tremendous healing has come from spending just minutes with their child – whether it’s minutes or whether it’s days, or in my case eight years.
http://www.thejournal.ie/incompatible-with-life-law-to-ban-phrase-2165133-Jun2015/
Not really sure what they're on about here, fatal-foetal-abnormalities, maybe? How are they pushed towards termination when that's not available in Ireland (I think)? Do doctors generally use the phrase incompatible with life?
Touch of the 'balance' narrative whine about this, too.Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.
CMod: Entertainment
0 -
Yes, it's terrible to feel "pushed" into something that's illegal, unconstitutional, and shrouded by a vast cloud of social hypocrisy. Obviously more policing of language is urgently required, too! Lower impact euphemisms, under penalty of sanction under an amended "Regulation of Information (Services outside the state for termination of pregnancies) Act"!The Black Oil wrote: »And we're back to the women are pushed into abortion narrative. Pro-life folks complaining about the phrase 'incompatible with life'.
Not sure what the actual prevalence is, but my impression is that it's indeed to be a "softer" alternative to the former. Not hitting the treadmill fast enough to stand still, it seems though, for the liking of some.Not really sure what they're on about here, fatal-foetal-abnormalities, maybe? How are they pushed towards termination when that's not available in Ireland (I think)? Do doctors generally use the phrase incompatible with life?0 -
Yes doctors use that phrase when explaining FFA to people. The parents would be told to expect a stillborn child here, or they could go for an abortion abroad if they didn't want to wait for full term.The Black Oil wrote: »Not really sure what they're on about here, fatal-foetal-abnormalities, maybe? How are they pushed towards termination when that's not available in Ireland (I think)? Do doctors generally use the phrase incompatible with life?
The example given in the article of a child who lived on for 8 years seems to refer to a case of partial Patau Syndrome or Mosaic Trisomy 13, which is not FFA and not necessarily "‘incompatible with life" at all. Like Downs Syndrome the life expectancy is much shorter than usual, and there are fairly severe health problems.
The parents might have been told that the more severe form is usually incompatible with life. It would be irresponsible IMO for the medical profession to hide the bad news from people, by dressing it up in less stark terms, as Mattie Mc Grath seems to be suggesting they should do.0 -
Youth Defence statement on it's facebook page - AMNESTY are wrong, experts say. POWERFUL letter from Obstetricians in the Irish Times today sharply criticising Amnesty for their "unwarranted and unfounded allegations" in relation to the care of pregnant women in Ireland. The allegation that women are forced to carry a “dead baby” inside them for months after miscarriage "it is at best a gross misrepresentation, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians," they say.
READ the entire letter here - using the letter letter in the link below from a group of Obstetricians protesting Amnesty's statement on abortion rights here..
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/amnesty-international-and-abortion-1.2254668
I am supposing the obstetricians have not taken into account how some pregnant women have reported on how they were treated in hospitals here, except to mention Conserative "watch and wait" approach (para 4) and a straightforward denial that perceived legal threats are weighed up while they consider what to do in situations where scans (plural) show the feotus has NO heartbeat (para 7). Para 6 makes a claim that Amnesty is trying to make a debate on Amendment 8 relative to the debate on abortion, by linking it with miscarriages. I see that the Amnesty item actually mentions doctors, and not obstetricians. It's good to see that the obstetricians are putting their heads above the parapet and declare that it is they who are involved in the refusal to provide abortions when they are faced with medical scientific proof that there are dead feotus in womens wombs, given that they consistently rely on the medical scientific equipment to show the presence of feotal heart-rates/beats.0 -
Advertisement
-
http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/views-from-the-nhs-frontline/2015/jun/22/abortion-doctor-learn-life-women?CMP=fb_gu
I found this quite powerful. I wonder how many women from Ireland this doctor treats every day.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement