Abortion Discussion

Dan_Solo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, you're discussing a right to support and not a right to life.

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

They most certainly are connected and interdependent if you are saying a foetus becomes human, and presumably deserving a right to life, when it can survive "without support".
This isn't saying their definition is the same at all.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Consider the thought experiment I've already posted which suggests just that.
This is to discuss the concept of equivalence.

Yes, it suggests it, it just doesn't posit a circumstance where the question could arise. I'm dubious as to the value of the question... why formulate a response to something that can't happen? Or more to the point, why would you think someone else should?

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, it suggests it, it just doesn't posit a circumstance where the question could arise. I'm dubious as to the value of the question... why formulate a response to something that can't happen? Or more to the point, why would you think someone else should?

Do you need me to suggest such a circumstance for it to exist?

Consider a woman who discovers she has a case of advanced brain cancer while 18 weeks pregnant.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, it suggests it, it just doesn't posit a circumstance where the question could arise. I'm dubious as to the value of the question... why formulate a response to something that can't happen? Or more to the point, why would you think someone else should?

Of course it could happen where a doctor can't decide which is more likely to survive without intervention. Then we need to know which he should choose to try to preserve the most.

Dan_Solo

silverharp wrote: »

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.

I don't see how moving from "the law expects" to "society expects" advances your case. If a person has no obligation to support anyone else in your eyes then whatever anyone else thinks shouldn't change your opinion or reasoning, even if it changes the facts of what actually happens.

silverharp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't see how moving from "the law expects" to "society expects" advances your case. If a person has no obligation to support anyone else in your eyes then whatever anyone else thinks shouldn't change your opinion or reasoning, even if it changes the facts of what actually happens.

Because people do have value and independant rights. And people also have obligations in a society to defend those rights. It just comes down to the point of where obligations become onerous. Making a call to social services is not onerous. Compelling someone to compromise bodily integrity is.

Dan_Solo

silverharp wrote: »

Because people do have value and independant rights. And people also have obligations in a society to defend those rights. It just comes down to the point of where obligations become onerous. Making a call to social services is not onerous. Compelling someone to compromise bodily integrity is.

And you'll be deciding what's "onerous" from here on I presume? I can make up plenty of situations where arranging support for your child would be FAR more than a phone call. So in these cases there was no obligation to support the child?
This is what happens when you want to base a human right on a sliding scale personal interpretation.

Delirium

Two-thirds majority in Ireland want abortion decriminalized (Amnesty International/ Red C poll)

Headline figures are as follows:

• 64% of people did not know it is a crime to get an abortion in Ireland when a woman’s life is not at risk.
• Less than one in 10 (9%) knew the penalty for having an unlawful abortion in Ireland is up to 14 years imprisonment.
• Only 7% agreed that women should be imprisoned for up to 14 years for having an unlawful abortion.
• Only 13% of people agreed that doctors should be imprisoned for up to 14 years for performing an unlawful abortion.
• 71% agreed that classifying abortion as a crime contributes to the distress and stigma felt by women who have had abortions.
• 65% of respondents agreed Ireland’s abortion ban makes women have unsafe abortions.
• 68% agree that Ireland’s abortion ban does not stop most women who want an abortion from having one.

The poll also found that 70% of respondents agree that women have an international human right to an abortion when their pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, where their life or health is at risk, or in cases of fatal foetal impairment. On 24 June 2015 the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reiterated this right when it called on Ireland to revise its abortion laws to bring them in line with international human rights standards.


“81% percent of people were in favour of access to abortion beyond the current Irish legal position. This comprises the 36% who believe abortion should be allowed where the woman’s life is at risk, the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, where the woman’s health is at risk, or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality, and the 45% who would go further and allow women to access abortion as they choose. 9% were in favour of access just where the woman’s life is at risk, the current legal position,” said Bryan Cox, director at Red C Research and Marketing.


“What also struck us is how few respondents declined to answer questions or had no opinion. Clearly people have views they want to express.”

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And you'll be deciding what's "onerous" from here on I presume? I can make up plenty of situations where arranging support for your child would be FAR more than a phone call. So in these cases there was no obligation to support the child?
This is what happens when you want to base a human right on a sliding scale personal interpretation.

You're assuming that the embryo or fetus is exactly equivalent to a child, when in fact it's not.

No sane person would, for example, choose to save even a hundred frozen embryos over a single child. And only the most extreme religious fundamentalist would still claim (though it was felt to be a genuine conundrum in the past) that it would be moral to choose to save a fetus instead of its mother, if that was not what the mother herself wanted.

If they were genuinely equivalent, it would be 50/50 as to which should be saved.

So your sliding scale already exists : the mother is an existing person, the fetus only a potential one. Even our own law, misogynistic as it is, recognizes that fact.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

You're assuming that the embryo or fetus is exactly equivalent to a child, when in fact it's not.

No sane person would, for example, choose to save even a hundred frozen embryos over a single child. And only the most extreme religious fundamentalist would still claim (though it was felt to be a genuine conundrum in the past) that it would be moral to choose to save a fetus instead of its mother, if that was not what the mother herself wanted.

If they were genuinely equivalent, it would be 50/50 as to which should be saved.

So your sliding scale already exists : the mother is an existing person, the fetus only a potential one. Even our own law, misogynistic as it is, recognizes that fact.

No, because the foetus is essentially human, as far as I and medical science is concerned, at 22-24 weeks. Yes, the mother takes precedence medically for the simple reason she is more likely to survive than a pre-term baby.
BTW I never said an embryo was human. Is it too much to ask that you don't conflate everybody who doesn't agree with you as having the same standpoint?

Dan_Solo

SW wrote: »

Two-thirds majority in Ireland want abortion decriminalized (Amnesty International/ Red C poll)

So the majority are against elective abortions?

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So the majority are against elective abortions?

Yes. I read it that only 45% agreed with elective abortion being available.

Kev W

That still shows a vast majority that want the law as it stands to be changed.

Dan_Solo

SW wrote: »

Yes. I read it that only 45% agreed with elective abortion being available.

And did everybody being polled know the legal and medical definition of abortion, or just go with "termination of foetus" as is the widely accepted vernacular?

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So the majority are against elective abortions?

I can't access the link to the poll and results summary
https://amnesty.box.com/s/8zxzks3xoqg1c75ncjeiyp8x9lum66b0

But 45% being for something, does not necessarily mean 55% (majority) against. I assume the data is in that link if someone can post the table.

Dan_Solo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can't access the link to the poll and results summary
https://amnesty.box.com/s/8zxzks3xoqg1c75ncjeiyp8x9lum66b0

But 45% being for something, does not necessarily mean 55% (majority) against. I assume the data is in that link if someone can post the table.

I know that. The point is the poll specifically said there were very few "undecided" so it would be logical conclusion, yes?

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And did everybody being polled know the legal and medical definition of abortion, or just go with "termination of foetus" as is the widely accepted vernacular?

don't know, I don't work for Red C nor have I interviewed every person who was quizzed in the poll.

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

That still shows a vast majority that want the law as it stands to be changed.

No doubt about that. It doesn't come close to what the majority of pro-choice posters here are advocating though.

Dan_Solo

SW wrote: »

don't know, I don't work for Red C nor have I interviewed every person who was quizzed in the poll.

Apologies for assuming you had any information on it just because you posted the link.
(The question wasn't really directed specifically at you of course in the first place)

silverharp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And you'll be deciding what's "onerous" from here on I presume? I can make up plenty of situations where arranging support for your child would be FAR more than a phone call. So in these cases there was no obligation to support the child?
This is what happens when you want to base a human right on a sliding scale personal interpretation.

onerous would be compromising bodily integrity without an invitation. A woman has a right to exercise her "self ownership" by disconnecting from the foetus, in the same way that a woman cant have her body used to keep actual citizens alive by forced organ donation or blood donation even.

recedite

SW wrote: »

Two-thirds majority in Ireland want abortion decriminalized (Amnesty International/ Red C poll)

I find it hard to believe that 64% of people are ignorant of the law on abortion.
I'd like to know what the wording of the question was, and what kind of people were asked it.

Dan_Solo

recedite wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that 64% of people are ignorant of the law on abortion.
I'd like to know what the wording of the question was, and what kind of people were asked it.

Yes, more info required. As soon as I see "only" and some imaginative summations of different opinion groups I know immediately it's agenda driven.

Delirium

recedite wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that 64% of people are ignorant of the law on abortion.
I'd like to know what the wording of the question was, and what kind of people were asked it.

There's a link on the article page to the full poll but I don't seem to be able to access it.

recedite

Neither can I access it. I'll assume its because this is a new poll, rather than some subterfuge. Nevertheless my opinion of Colm O'Gorman and Amnesty International has lessened recently. They did well on the marriage equality campaign, but I think that success has encouraged them to overstep the mark now by taking a partisan line on something that is a lot more multi-faceted.

Dan_Solo

recedite wrote: »

Neither can I access it. I'll assume its because this is a new poll, rather than some subterfuge. Nevertheless my opinion of Colm O'Gorman and Amnesty International has lessened recently. They did well on the marriage equality campaign, but I think that success has encouraged them to overstep the mark now by taking a partisan line on something that is a lot more multi-faceted.

It looks like they really want to push for elective foetal termination but they simply don't have the backing of public opinion. Hence the weasely stats treatment.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It looks like they really want to push for elective foetal termination but they simply don't have the backing of public opinion. Hence the weasely stats treatment.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "weasely stats treatment". The numbers are what they are. I also don't see any kind of "push for elective foetal termination" there.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you need me to suggest such a circumstance for it to exist?
Consider a woman who discovers she has a case of advanced brain cancer while 18 weeks pregnant.

Sure. Are you positing that the mother will survive the brain cancer if she has chemotherapy thereby killing the foetus, and that the foetus will survive the mother if the mother is denied chemotherapy and the foetus is allowed to develop to term?
Since both have an equal right to life I would lean towards whichever of the two has the higher probability of surviving the chosen course.
However I would not be inclined to disregard the mothers right to choose not to save her own life in favour of her childs, unless this scenario includes some post apocalyptic world re-population aspect along with my Solomon like opportunities of choice.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Sure. Are you positing that the mother will survive the brain cancer if she has chemotherapy thereby killing the foetus, and that the foetus will survive the mother if the mother is denied chemotherapy and the foetus is allowed to develop to term?
Since both have an equal right to life I would lean towards whichever of the two has the higher probability of surviving the chosen course.
However I would not be inclined to disregard the mothers right to choose not to save her own life in favour of her childs, unless this scenario includes some post apocalyptic world re-population aspect along with my Solomon like opportunities of choice.

The probabilities are in the question. Please attempt to answer the question asked and not one which you'd prefer to answer.

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "weasely stats treatment". The numbers are what they are. I also don't see any kind of "push for elective foetal termination" there.

It's in their open letter. They want "at least" abortion for rape, incest, foetal abnormality. i.e. they'd like elective too. And nobody objectively reports numbers using "only" and switching between % for and against. Just give us the data and let us decide what's "only". (Which hasn't happened yet)

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Of course it could happen where a doctor can't decide which is more likely to survive without intervention. Then we need to know which he should choose to try to preserve the most.

But I think a doctor should be able to decide; if they can't decide which is more likely to survive then they should work to save both until they are sure that one or other must die in order for the other to live, and then they should try to save the one most likely to survive.

Trying to reduce that to a binary on/off based purely on which one is a woman and which one a foetus doesn't make any sense to me; there is so much more to every situation than that.