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
1…297298300302303…334

Comments

  • Options
    #8972
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,811 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So you have now declared human rights should be subject to the availability of SMA. Well done there.

    No, I was pointing out that your post is completely false. A newborn baby requires the care of a competent adult, ANY competent adult. In many parts of the world it's still common enough for women to die in childbirth, within living memory it was far more common in Ireland than it is today, but if the child was otherwise healthy it usually survived.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #8973
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    This could be a year after birth for breastfed babies though. And as I said earlier it leads to defining when a person should receive human rights based on current and available medical technology. A 24 week old Swede would be a human being whereas a 40 week old Eritrean would still be a "group of cells".

    I think you misinterpreted what I said, as soon as a baby is born it is, by definition, a separate entity. The question is determining at what point of gestation can we classify this separation.

    This is the argument of viability. From 24 weeks a foetus is (generally) viable outside of the womb, although a lot of medical intervention is required. This is why this is considered the point of no return for non-medically required terminations.


  • Options
    #8974
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm just talking about the equivalence aspect. I'd like to see how someone could argue the idea.
    Surely your final sentence shows an inequality and not equivalence?
    It would appear so, however, if you consider that the life of the unborn child is dependent on the mother, and the death of the mother will cause the death of the unborn child, then whilst both lives have equal value it is better to save one than none.
    I don't think I've come across a circumstance where the death of the mother was likely to facilitate the life of the unborn child?


  • Options
    #8975
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    swampgas wrote: »
    What strikes me here is the implicit assumption that you get to make the decisions, not the woman whose life is on the line. Would a better answer not be along the lines of "I would prefer X, but obviously the ultimate decision must rest with the woman" ?
    I get the very strong feeling from your posts that you believe that pregnant women should not get much say in the matter, and that's not something I think many woman would find very reassuring.
    You can blame the implicit assumption on obplayer I'm afraid; it was his proposition that we should tell our wives that their lives matters less to us than a collection of cells.
    Or blame it on Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief, who asked how do we decide the course of action?
    I get the strong feeling from your post that you're looking for an opinion to ascribe and then beat up on. Maybe look a little harder?


  • Options
    #8976
    Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief


    Absolam wrote: »
    It would appear so, however, if you consider that the life of the unborn child is dependent on the mother, and the death of the mother will cause the death of the unborn child, then whilst both lives have equal value it is better to save one than none.
    I don't think I've come across a circumstance where the death of the mother was likely to facilitate the life of the unborn child?

    Consider the thought experiment I've already posted which suggests just that.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Care to flesh this out?

    In the horrific scenario above, and it's a one-or-the-other choice, how do we decide the course of action? (Lets earnestly complete this thought experiment).

    The probability of survival for each subject (Woman or Group of Cells) given either treatment A and B is listed below.
    A B
    Woman 0 1
    Group of Cells 1 0


    Do we simply flip a coin to choose the treatment?

    This is to discuss the concept of equivalence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8977
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mod:
    Absolam wrote: »
    [...] probably much easier than thinking your point through [...]
    obplayer wrote: »
    Thinking is much easier to the non-religious.
    Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, cut out the pointed jibes, please.

    Thanking youze.


  • Options
    #8978
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    robdonn wrote: »
    I think you misinterpreted what I said, as soon as a baby is born it is, by definition, a separate entity. The question is determining at what point of gestation can we classify this separation.

    This is the argument of viability. From 24 weeks a foetus is (generally) viable outside of the womb, although a lot of medical intervention is required. This is why this is considered the point of no return for non-medically required terminations.
    That doesn't explain though why no longer needing the mother's support is the correct time to assign human rights to the foetus. A baby continues to need support, indeed a lot of adult human beings do at some time or another. If required supported is unavailable, do we remove the person's human rights? That is the same as the "medically possible viability" criteria you are outlining here.


  • Options
    #8979
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    No, I was pointing out that your post is completely false. A newborn baby requires the care of a competent adult, ANY competent adult. In many parts of the world it's still common enough for women to die in childbirth, within living memory it was far more common in Ireland than it is today, but if the child was otherwise healthy it usually survived.
    Who is this "competent adult"? As a thought experiment, if a woman has a baby on a desert island, the baby has no right to life as there is no society there to look after it in the absence of the mother wanting to?
    You are again ascribing human rights based on availability of support.


  • Options
    #8980
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    swampgas wrote: »
    What strikes me here is the implicit assumption that you get to make the decisions, not the woman whose life is on the line.

    Would a better answer not be along the lines of "I would prefer X, but obviously the ultimate decision must rest with the woman" ?

    I get the very strong feeling from your posts that you believe that pregnant women should not get much say in the matter, and that's not something I think many woman would find very reassuring.
    Well that would be a point if we haven't decided as a society that we all have interests in what people, including women, do with their bodies. That's a simple fact though that we have done so.


  • Options
    #8981
    Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Who is this "competent adult"? As a thought experiment, if a woman has a baby on a desert island, the baby has no right to life as there is no society there to look after it in the absence of the mother wanting to?
    You are again ascribing human rights based on availability of support.

    Surely on 'ability to exercise that right'?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8982
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Surely on 'ability to exercise that right'?
    Not unless you believe human beings (even as freely independent adults) have no intrinsic human rights. The imaginary desert island mother has the ability to support the baby, but she doesn't want to, therefore the baby now has no right to life. Yes?


  • Options
    #8983
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That doesn't explain though why no longer needing the mother's support is the correct time to assign human rights to the foetus. A baby continues to need support, indeed a lot of adult human beings do at some time or another. If required supported is unavailable, do we remove the person's human rights? That is the same as the "medically possible viability" criteria you are outlining here.

    Well I admit that my point is somewhat reliant on the availability of the medical support required to sustain the foetus, but it also has the effect that the point of viability can potentially pushed back to an earlier date with future medical advancement.

    My point is only that we assign rights to the foetus once it can be classified as a separate entity from the mother, which is to say that it is no longer solely dependant on the mother. Anything before this can be argued that it is still a part of the mother's body and therefore entirely up to her to decide it's fate.

    Nobody is required to care for any other life, especially at the expense of their own. A woman should be allowed to end her pregnancy at any point that she chooses, but the method for doing so is dependant on the developmental stage of the foetus. If it is viable and the technology is available to maintain this viability, then the foetus should be removed and taken away, just as with any other unwanted child. If the foetus is not viable, or the technology is not available to maintain it, then it should be simply terminated as removing it without the support to maintain it is equal to a termination, if not worse considering the potentially drawn out nature of it's eventual death.

    The primary point is that the woman has every right to choose what happens inside her, and no external body, whether medical, governmental or personal, should be allowed to force the woman to progress with a full term if she chooses not to.


  • Options
    #8984
    Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Not unless you believe human beings (even as freely independent adults) have no intrinsic human rights. The imaginary desert island mother has the ability to support the baby, but she doesn't want to, therefore the baby now has no right to life. Yes?

    You are implying that the mother has an obligation to support, which is not a right. Unless you're arguing instead that the baby has a right to support?


  • Options
    #8985
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,551 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Absolam wrote: »
    You can blame the implicit assumption on obplayer I'm afraid; it was his proposition that we should tell our wives that their lives matters less to us than a collection of cells.
    Or blame it on Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief, who asked how do we decide the course of action?
    I get the strong feeling from your post that you're looking for an opinion to ascribe and then beat up on. Maybe look a little harder?

    Fair point.

    My apologies - I should have read back over the thread properly and taken your response in context.


  • Options
    #8986
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That doesn't explain though why no longer needing the mother's support is the correct time to assign human rights to the foetus. A baby continues to need support, indeed a lot of adult human beings do at some time or another. If required supported is unavailable, do we remove the person's human rights? That is the same as the "medically possible viability" criteria you are outlining here.
    Having human rights doesn't mean that society is forced to keep someone alive at any cost. If you were to die tomorrow of kidney failure and I had the perfect spare kidney , I couldn't be forced to donate mine. You still have human rights.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8987
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    You are implying that the mother has an obligation to support, which is not a right. Unless you're arguing instead that the baby has a right to support?
    Since I believe at some point in the womb (no, not at conception, more like 20+ weeks) the foetus becomes a human, then yes, I believe it has the right to be supported by the mother every bit as much as a month old baby has the right not to be left in the attic to starve to death.


  • Options
    #8988
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    silverharp wrote: »
    Having human rights doesn't mean that society is forced to keep someone alive at any cost. If you were to die tomorrow of kidney failure and I had the perfect spare kidney , I couldn't be forced to donate mine. You still have human rights.
    But if I am already feeding children, or even a dog, I can just stop feeding them if I like?


  • Options
    #8989
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Since I believe at some point in the womb (no, not at conception, more like 20+ weeks) the foetus becomes a human, then yes, I believe it has the right to be supported by the mother every bit as much as a month old baby has the right not to be left in the attic to starve to death.

    But even if the foetus has the right to be supported, how can you obligate the mother to do so without infringing on her own rights?


  • Options
    #8990
    Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Since I believe at some point in the womb (no, not at conception, more like 20+ weeks) the foetus becomes a human, then yes, I believe it has the right to be supported by the mother every bit as much as a month old baby has the right not to be left in the attic to starve to death.

    Well from this I would say that you are not arguing about the right to life, you are either arguing that there exists an obligation of support (on the mother) or a right to support (of the child). It's a subtle but extremely important difference.


  • Options
    #8991
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Well from this I would say that you are not arguing about the right to life, you are either arguing that there exists an obligation of support (on the mother) or a right to support (of the child). It's a subtle but extremely important difference.
    This isn't really any different from saying "somebody else can feed the baby". All parents have an obligation to support their children, or arrange alternative support.
    Do you believe anybody has an obligation to support somebody else at all?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8992
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    But if I am already feeding children, or even a dog, I can just stop feeding them if I like?
    Then we are talking about the transfer of guardianship rights , you announce you are abandoning rights someone else takes up the rights. So no you couldn't secretly stop caring for person or pet even.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8993
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    silverharp wrote: »
    Then we are talking about the transfer of guardianship rights , you announce you are abandoning rights someone else takes up the rights. So no you couldn't secretly stop caring for person or pet even.
    If you have no obligation to support, why is it your job to arrange anything exactly?


  • Options
    #8994
    Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    This isn't really any different from saying "somebody else can feed the baby".
    It is. It's a pretty important point of order.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    All parents have an obligation to support their children, or arrange alternative support.
    I agree. This doesn't change anything about what I've already said though. You're not discussing a right to life, you're discussing an obligation to support.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Do you believe anybody has an obligation to support somebody else at all?
    Yes absolutely. However this is patently independent from a right to life.


  • Options
    #8995
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It is. It's a pretty important point of order.

    I agree. This doesn't change anything about what I've already said though. You're not discussing a right to life, you're discussing an obligation to support.

    Yes absolutely. However this is patently independent from a right to life.
    Well it is entirely connected actually. Obviously nobody has an obligation to support some random clump of biological material, but if that thing is a human being with a right to life and a dependent then you are obliged.
    My position is that a human foetus (24+ weeks approx) is a dependent deserving of support exactly at a one month old baby is. Or an arranged transfer of support.


  • Options
    #8996
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    If you have no obligation to support, why is it your job to arrange anything exactly?

    That's how it works at the moment with kids that go into care. Deciding to not look after them without telling social services would be a crime.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8997
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    silverharp wrote: »
    That's how it works at the moment with kids that go into care. Deciding to not look after them without telling social services would be a crime.
    And so is elective termination of a foetus. Saying "that's the law" isn't really a great argument then really is it?


  • Options
    #8998
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    And so is elective termination of a foetus. Saying "that's the law" isn't really a great argument then really is it?

    Not if you do it elsewhere. That's the law, the unborn lose all constitutional rights once they're taken outside of Ireland.


  • Options
    #8999
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    lazygal wrote: »
    Not if you do it elsewhere. That's the law, the unborn lose all constitutional rights once they're taken outside of Ireland.
    That's no more relevant than saying what the law is here to try to prove something is right or wrong.
    It's also not technically true anyway as there are other countries that have rights for the unborn. It's not just Ireland.


  • Options
    #9000
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    And so is elective termination of a foetus. Saying "that's the law" isn't really a great argument then really is it?
    It was just shorthand for saying that society would find it unacceptable to just kill your own children but that you can't be legally forced to raise them even if not doing so is considered a sh1tty thing to do. Society accepts that adults have a certain self owning quality so there are limits in the amount of cooperation one can expect.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9001
    Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    My position is that a human foetus (24+ weeks approx) is a dependent deserving of support exactly at a one month old baby is. Or an arranged transfer of support.
    Again, you're discussing a right to support and not a right to life.

    They are connected, but they are not the same thing.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement