Abortion Discussion

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

I agree with all of the above.

Well, it was a question, not a statement -- so your agreement seems a little ambiguous. Am I take this as a statement that in the hypothetical circumstance, you (and the the vast majority of people) would allow a maternal choice? And that this indeed contradicts the "equal utility" or "equal value" position?

As emmet kept bringing up the subject of his overly-simplistic physics puzzle over numerous pages of this thread, I just thought it was time somebody solved it for him.

As he's not getting a straight answer to it at all, I continue to wonder if it's "over-simplistic", or "not simplistic enough yet"!

And this is exactly the Constitutional position.

Not really, following the X Case ruling.

IMO it should be shifted somewhat, to specify that the unborn have an almost equal right to life compared to the mother. That would not satisfy the pro-choice lobby of course, but it would get majority support. And the mathematical/linguistic pedants among us would also have reason approve.

Or to say, along with the medics and the lawyers: what on earth does that even mean, and how are we ever supposed to work with it?

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

You didn't? How odd. I mean circumstances where the continuation of one life (generally that of the foetus) is a substantial threat to the continuation of the life of the other (generally the mother).

Ah, I see, my surprise entirely disappears. You weren't actually addressing the circumstances of emmet's hypothetical case at all. My mistake.

The net effect is that both don't have equal chances to live, not that both don't have equal value.

Incorrect. Perhaps you'd like to address the cases put to you that demonstrate that (emmet's or mine), rather than wandering off into vaguer territory more convenient for the "compatibilist" position.

recedite

robdonn wrote: »

Something to be determined by medical professionals rather than politicians or the general public.

Yes, but also by technology. If somebody patents an artificial womb next year which is capable of providing an environment the embryo can develop in, where does that leave the "abortion up until viability" argument?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, it was a question, not a statement -- so your agreement seems a little ambiguous. Am I take this as a statement that in the hypothetical circumstance, you (and the the vast majority of people) would allow a maternal choice? And that this indeed contradicts the "equal utility" or "equal value" position?

What your own scenario proved in mathematical terms is that there are times when the "maximum utility value" choice is to try to save both entities, even where there is some risk to the higher value entity.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Not really, following the X Case ruling...
Or to say, along with the medics and the lawyers: what on earth does that even mean, and how are we ever supposed to work with it?

What the x-case (and subsequent legislation) did was to establish that the foetus is almost, but not quite, equal to the mother in value. It doesn't matter by how much, all that matters is that in a direct conflict of interests where one must die in order for the other to live, then the unborn must die.
The actual legal position states in the Constitution that they are equal, but due to the interdependency factor as explained earlier, when this is factored in, an exact equivalence does not exist in practice.

This is of course too succinct a point for the vast majority of people. Many in the pro-life lobby would prefer to go a bit further and simply say the unborn is always of lesser value than its mother, while still valuing its life. IMO this is the majority position in Ireland (but nobody can know that, without a referendum).

Against this "almost equal" proposition is the RCC who will still insist that the unborn always has strictly equal value, and which opposed the x-case legislation.
Also against it is the pro-choice lobby, who would simply refuse to even contemplate such an argument, because it is so far from the "unborn life has no value at all" position.

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but also by technology. If somebody patents an artificial womb next year which is capable of providing an environment the embryo can develop in, where does that leave the "abortion up until viability" argument?


What your own scenario proved in mathematical terms is that there are times when the "maximum utility value" choice is to try to save both entities, even where there is some risk to the higher value entity.

What the x-case (and subsequent legislation) did was to establish that the foetus is almost, but not quite, equal to the mother in value. It doesn't matter by how much, all that matters is that in a direct conflict of interests where one must die in order for the other to live, then the unborn must die.
The actual legal position states in the Constitution that they are equal, but due to the interdependency factor as explained earlier, when this is factored in, an exact equivalence does not exist in practice.

This is of course too succinct a point for the vast majority of people. Many in the pro-life lobby would prefer to go a bit further and simply say the unborn is always of lesser value than its mother, while still valuing its life. IMO this is the majority position in Ireland (but nobody can know that, without a referendum).

Against this "almost equal" proposition is the RCC who will still insist that the unborn always has strictly equal value, and which opposed the x-case legislation.
Also against it is the pro-choice lobby, who would simply refuse to even contemplate such an argument, because it is so far from the "unborn life has no value at all" position.

A 3 day old human embryo contains 150 cells. No brain, no nervous system.
The brain of a fly contains 100,000 cells.

So a 3 day old human embryo is an independent life, almost equivalent to a pregnant woman's?

Explained here better than I ever could.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKWYENPxNtM&feature=player_detailpage#t=73
Explain please.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

What your own scenario proved in mathematical terms is that there are times when the "maximum utility value" choice is to try to save both entities, even where there is some risk to the higher value entity.

I think you're confusing the cases. The scenario I put to you all was one regarding the supposed "equal value" assumption. If you're going to claim one is a "higher value entity", it's up to you to make clear what that means. In any sense.

What the x-case (and subsequent legislation) did was to establish that the foetus is almost, but not quite, equal to the mother in value.

That seems a rather odd interpretation, frankly. Indeed, I'll go further and say "incorrect".

It doesn't matter by how much, all that matters is that in a direct conflict of interests where one must die in order for the other to live, then the unborn must die.

This is ignoring risk and uncertainty, which are endemic -- omnipresent, even -- in medical practice. It's one thing to say "if you can't save both, save the mother". It's quite another to say what risk the woman must be forced to undergo if there's a prospect of both living.

The actual legal position states in the Constitution that they are equal, but due to the interdependency factor as explained earlier, when this is factored in, an exact equivalence does not exist in practice.

That may have been the most broken URL I've ever seen. Apparently it was intended to be to one of my posts... I'm sure it was a good one!

The "actual legal position" is that if a couple of docs form a good-opinion opinion that there's a "real and substantial risk" to maternal life, and the woman consents, then abort away. And you'd have to meet a criminal standard of proof that they were acting otherwise.

This is of course too succinct a point for the vast majority of people. Many in the pro-life lobby would prefer to go a bit further and simply say the unborn is always of lesser value than its mother, while still valuing its life. IMO this is the majority position in Ireland (but nobody can know that, without a referendum).

If opinion polling is anything to go by, majority opinion is considerably more liberal than this.

Also against it is the pro-choice lobby, who would simply refuse to even contemplate such an argument, because it is so far from the "unborn life has no value at all" position.

Who is saying "no value"? The question is whether foetal life is of greater value than maternal health, maternal bodily integrity, and maternal freedom of choice.

I think we've pretty much established that it's of lesser "value" than maternal life in Irish law. And for purposes of this discussion too, from silence on the topic. No-one asserting otherwise is defending that actual position.

The Black Oil

Leo delivering a dose of STFU.

A NUMBER OF pro-life TDs tried and failed to get further information on the 26 abortions that were carried out under the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act last year.

In parliamentary questions submitted last week, Fianna Fáil TD Éamon Ó Cuív, who voted against the legislation two years ago, sought details on the number of terminations carried out under the new law that resulted in a “live birth”.

Other pro-life TDs, independent Mattie McGrath and Renua’s Terence Flanagan also sought further information on the 26 terminations. Flanagan asked whether “the baby survived the procedure” in any of the 26 cases.

~

However, Health Minister Leo Varadkar told the deputies that the new law does not permit the publication of any further details about the cases.

The information published on these procedures is restricted in order to limit the risk of identification in what is a private, confidential matter between women and their doctors.

http://www.thejournal.ie/pro-life-tds-abortions-2207705-Jul2015/

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

That seems a rather odd interpretation, frankly. Indeed, I'll go further and say "incorrect".

(In reply to "What the x-case (and subsequent legislation) did was to establish that the foetus is almost, but not quite, equal to the mother in value")

And then later on you say

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think we've pretty much established that it's of lesser "value" than maternal life in Irish law.

Which is basically the same thing as I said. But why is it only "incorrect" when I say it?

"Value" is not really the right word here anyway. There is a quasi-legal argument, which I don't want to end up trying to defend, that both have the same inherent value (for want of a better word) but because of the extra risk factor that the unborn would experience if its mother died, then if the choice is between one or the other the maternal life gets priority.

Despite explaining it here, I won't defend this reasoning because IMO the life of the unborn genuinely has a lesser intrinsic value, regardless of any risk factors. And the earlier the stage of life, the less its value.

Also IMO, the x-case judgement was really an attempt to make the Constitution fit the demands of the outraged public at the time. At least one judge said afterwards that it was never meant to apply to other situations. Which seems bizarre.

So I'm not going to defend any of that weaseling around. I'm just calling it as it is, and giving my opinion as to how it all happened.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

(In reply to "What the x-case (and subsequent legislation) did was to establish that the foetus is almost, but not quite, equal to the mother in value")

And then later on you say

Which is basically the same thing as I said. But why is it only "incorrect" when I say it?

Because it's not (even "basically") the same thing at all. Contrast "almost, but not quite" with "lesser". Because it's clearly presently vindicated on the basis of being much less. And "mother" with "maternal life" -- emphasis in original, indeed. Only the woman has legal personhood, and the full range of rights in law. The two "compete" only in the area of "life".

"Value" is not really the right word here anyway. There is a quasi-legal argument, which I don't want to end up trying to defend, that both have the same inherent value (for want of a better word) but because of the extra risk factor that the unborn would experience if its mother died, then if the choice is between one or the other the maternal life gets priority.

But that's not true. As emmet and I keep pointing out. There's clearly more going on here than the "dependency" factor. No-one is actually defending the "forcibly risk one to save two" position, even when it's the "good odds bet". I think that in fact no-one -- or next to no-one -- actually believes in such a thing.

"Value" isn't a legal concept at all. The law is framed in terms of "rights", murky as their interrelationship at all, not utilitarianism. But we quickly get onto law, because one side of arguments wants (and has) the criminal law involved to enforce their value-judgements on other people. If we were merely discussing personal choices we'd surely quickly agree, and say "make your own decision according to your own judgement of the value".

Despite explaining it here, I won't defend this reasoning because IMO the life of the unborn genuinely has a lesser intrinsic value, regardless of any risk factors. And the earlier the stage of life, the less its value.

But that's just adding vagueness to the existing vagueness. How many dead zygotes, three-week-old "clumps", two-month embryos, or late-stage pre-viable foetuses respectively "balance" one dead woman? If that's not answerable (whether with precision in those terms or otherwise) then what business does it have coming within a bull's roar of the criminal law?

Also IMO, the x-case judgement was really an attempt to make the Constitution fit the demands of the outraged public at the time. At least one judge said afterwards that it was never meant to apply to other situations. Which seems bizarre.

Pretty much, on all these counts.

So I'm not going to defend any of that weaseling around. I'm just calling it as it is, and giving my opinion as to how it all happened.

IMO you're still calling it like it isn't! But credit for giving it a decent go, at least.

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

As emmet and I keep pointing out. There's clearly more going on here than the "dependency" factor.

But as I pointed out, it is actually the basis of our current legislation, via the x-case.
If the girl in the x-case had killed herself, the foetus would almost certainly have died too. According to Justice O'Flaherty, his reasoning for agreeing to uphold X's right to travel to the United Kingdom for an abortion because of suicidal ideation, "The stark situation is, if someone who is pregnant commits suicide, you lose the mother and the child."

alaimacerc wrote: »

No-one is actually defending the "forcibly risk one to save two" position, even when it's the "good odds bet". I think that in fact no-one -- or next to no-one -- actually believes in such a thing.

Nowadays nobody openly defends that position, even though it would follow as the logical conclusion of church teaching on the matter. At least, not whenever there is a "substantial" risk to the mothers life.
Up until the last few years though, I think there were hospitals that were willing to allow a substantial risk to maternal life to develop, rather than deliberately abort a live foetus. The HSE issued guidelines quite recently clarifying that such practices were wrong.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

But as I pointed out, it is actually the basis of our current legislation, via the x-case.

... which stems from "equal right to life". Not "are of equal value". Which is, it's more and more clear, not actually a proposition anyone wants to defend. (One can only hope they'll eventually be as reluctant to keep saying it anyway.)

Up until the last few years though, I think there were hospitals that were willing to allow a substantial risk to maternal life to develop, rather than deliberately abort a live foetus. The HSE issued guidelines quite recently clarifying that such practices were wrong.

They can't possibly be wrong -- that's exactly the threshold in the legislation. Of course, what that threshold means is subject to all the creative ambiguity in the world...

Delirium

that awkward moment when Youth Defence guest is asked if they campaign to protect children after birth.

https://twitter.com/suzybie/status/619450325917933568

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Are you familiar with proof by contradiction?
The equivalence follows from the assumption (equal 'value'), and the hypothesis (saving one but not the other). If you'd act differently (or more precisely, not regard the two as actually equivalent) in the hypothetical circumstance, then your values differ from those in the assumption. Therefore the assumption is false.

Only barely to be fair, but since in this case it essentially boils down to constructing a hypothesis which must be assumed to be true in order to prove the assumption false, it seems fairly pointless? If the assumption is true then the hypothesis is false, and vice versa.

alaimacerc wrote: »

If you're unhappy with either the specifics of the particular thought experiment (which don't at all with the biology of pregnancy), or with the utility values being "tied" (and therefore leaving a remaining arbitrary choice), then consider instead my alternative hypothetical case, above, which avoids both.

Was your alternative hypothetical case 'the chorioamnionitis and cancer treatment cases'?

alaimacerc wrote: »

The problem isn't with sentiment per se; it's with expressing one set of sentiments in law, while holding a distinct set in fact. (A situation the SC and the legislature has eventually finessed us back out of, over and above the "ferry to England" and "medical profession winking heavily" remedies previously (possibly) available.)

I think 'the' problem there is more with the currently legislatively expressed sentiments not being to your liking, than with the law not being aligned with the facts.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Incorrect. Perhaps you'd like to address the cases put to you that demonstrate that (emmet's or mine), rather than wandering off into vaguer territory more convenient for the "compatibilist" position.

Nope, I think it was quite correct. I thought the Savita Halappanavar reference did address your chorioamnionitis hypothetical, but maybe it's something else you're referring to, philosophical meanderings aside.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You've already been told that what you think a medic SHOULD be able to do is often impossible. Can you answer the question based on the facts in this universe?

Of course; the medic should decide who is more likely to survive and make a decision based on that, rather than on a preference for mother or baby. If the medic finds that decision impossible, they should find a medic for whom it isn't impossible.

Absolam

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Personally I wouldn't say that he should, though I wouldn't like to say that he shouldn't if he thinks it prudent. Or she of course.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. There is no gain nor loss in choosing either procedure as the outcomes have the exact same expected value. You may arbitrarily choose whichever procedure using whatever method you wish. (Flip a coin for example). There is no optimum choice. Nor are there any non-optimum choices available.

Which means there is no highest expected value outcome. Once you assign one (arbitrarily as you say) you refute the premise.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not discussing anything about morals. I'm discussing the concept of equivalence. I'd like to focus on that.

Fair enough. I'm not sure you'll find a lot of takers for that though.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Which means there is no highest expected value outcome. Once you assign one (arbitrarily as you say) you refute the premise.

The point is that in the case where there is equivalence (recall what our constitution tells us - therefore a good null hypothesis), there are no wrong decisions to make. The pragmatist can use whichever method they want to choose between Procedure A and Procedure B, knowing that in each case, one entity survives at the cost of the other.

In practice, in real life, this isn't what would happen though is it? If I were to suggest flipping a coin to decide whether to perform A or B it would be outrageous. A mother's life would certainly be saved.

Absolam wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm not sure you'll find a lot of takers for that though.

Is this because it's inherently obvious to all that there is no such equivalence?

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that in the case where there is equivalence (recall what our constitution tells us - therefore a good null hypothesis), there are no wrong decisions to make. The pragmatist can use whichever method they want to choose between Procedure A and Procedure B, knowing that in each case, one entity survives at the cost of the other.

Which still means the pragmatist is deliberately invalidating the premise?

Deleted User wrote: »

In practice, in real life, this isn't what would happen though is it? If I were to suggest flipping a coin to decide whether to perform A or B it would be outrageous. A mother's life would certainly be saved.

In practice, in real life, what happens is the equal right to life is observed (or is required to be observed).
It's stated in the Constitution, and the means by which it is observed in the case of pregnancy is set out in the POLDPA. The Act doesn't set out a circumstance where one right to life will not be held equal to another; it sets out a set of circumstances where a right to life may be constrained, specifically that of the foetus. Doctors are specifically required in the Act to have regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable, so when terminating a pregnancy in order to safe the life of the mother, they must also safe the life of the foetus. This observes their equal rights. If it is impossible to save the life of the foetus at that point (not forgetting that this point is where the mothers is life is actually endangered), then it is beyond what is practicable; not saving the life of the mother will result in the death of the foetus anyway.

Consider an entirely different circumstance subject to a similar rationale; a young woman obtains a firearm, takes her elderly father hostage and threatens to kill him. Both have an equal right to life. However, Gardai may be justified in taking the life of the young woman in order to save the man. Her right to life is still equal to that of the man, but is constrained by the fact that she poses a lethal threat to someone else. Were their situations reversed, they would still have an equal right to life, but he might be justifiably killed. Just as a foetus might be justifiably killed (or destroyed, if you prefer) when it poses a lethal threat to a mother, notwithstanding the fact that it has an equal right to life; it's right to life is not absolute (any more than a mothers right to life is absolute).

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this because it's inherently obvious to all that there is no such equivalence?

I think it's more because it's inherently obvious your concept of equivalence isn't immediately relatable to the concept of equal rights set out in the Constitution right to life?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Consider an entirely different circumstance subject to a similar rationale; a young woman obtains a firearm, takes her elderly father hostage and threatens to kill him. Both have an equal right to life. However, Gardai may be justified in taking the life of the young woman in order to save the man. Her right to life is still equal to that of the man, but is constrained by the fact that she poses a lethal threat to someone else. Were their situations reversed, they would still have an equal right to life, but he might be justifiably killed. Just as a foetus might be justifiably killed (or destroyed, if you prefer) when it poses a lethal threat to a mother, notwithstanding the fact that it has an equal right to life; it's right to life is not absolute (any more than a mothers right to life is absolute).

Wait, what? You haven't thought this equivalence thing through, have you?

You appear to be saying that if the mother, or rather the mother's health, were posing a threat to the life of the fetus, that it would be perfectly reasonable to kill the mother in order to improve the fetus' chance of life? Are you serious?

So all those emergency situations at births in the past, where it was necessary to "choose" between the mother and the baby - you're saying that Irish law actually forces the doctor to evaluate which of the two has the best chance of surviving, and go for that, irrespective of the woman and her partner's wishes?

Seriously?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Wait, what? You haven't thought this equivalence thing through, have you?

It's hard to say how much of what I think about this equivalence thing you can comment on, since you have me on ignore you can't have seen what I've posted. I may have given the equivalence thing a bit more thought that you've given the ignore thing...

volchitsa wrote: »

You appear to be saying that if the mother, or rather the mother's health, were posing a threat to the life of the fetus, that it would be perfectly reasonable to kill the mother in order to improve the fetus' chance of life? Are you serious?

Appearances must be deceiving I suppose. Not only have I not mentioned health at all in any of what I said, I haven't said that it's ever perfectly reasonable to kill anyone either, or that it might be done to improve their chance of life rather than save it. So, no, I haven't actually said even a single constituent part of what you imagine I appear to have said. I am however serious in what I actually did say. The equivalent reverse of the piece you highlighted, with regard to a foetus and mother, brings you to the conclusion that if the mother posed a lethal threat to the life of the foetus, the fact that they both have an equal right to life would be no barrier to terminating the life of the mother in order to save the life of the foetus (noting that I haven't said terminating the life of one is required to save the other, only that it may be). However, if you take the time to think it through, since terminating the life of the mother also terminates the life of the foetus (at least until towards the end of the pregnancy, more on that later) that conclusion is largely nonsensical; terminating the life of the mother can't save the life of the foetus, so it wouldn't be a useful course of action.

volchitsa wrote: »

So all those emergency situations at births in the past, where it was necessary to "choose" between the mother and the baby - you're saying that Irish law actually forces the doctor to evaluate which of the two has the best chance of surviving, and go for that, irrespective of the woman and her partner's wishes? Seriously?

I don't know why you think I'm saying that? But no, I'm not saying that.
A doctor is required to do their best to preserve the lives of their patients, which includes the unborn.
On the one hand a prospective mother may make the noble gesture of preferring the infants life over her own, which I personally think is something a doctor should give consideration to.
On the other hand, an infant has no facility to make that gesture, and I don't think anyone has a right to offer the gesture on it's behalf.
Nevertheless the doctor must endeavour to save both, and where that is not possible, to save whichever is possible. Whilst there was a time when the death of a prospective mother could assure the life of an infant, I suspect that is rarely the case anymore, if it ever is. If it were ( I said I'd come to this), it seems to me that the doctor would only have cause to deliberately take the life of the mother if she posed a lethal threat to the infant which could only be alleviated by doing so. In that (I suspect almost impossible) circumstance, I don't see a reason not to apply the same standard we would if any other person posed a lethal threat to someone.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Which still means the pragmatist is deliberately invalidating the premise?

Not in the slightest? If there exists an equivalence which implies there is no difference in expected value between either outcome, it is wholly irrelevant (in terms of value) which procedure is chosen. There should be no bias for one over the other.

Absolam wrote: »

In practice, in real life, what happens is the equal right to life is observed (or is required to be observed).
It's stated in the Constitution, and the means by which it is observed in the case of pregnancy is set out in the POLDPA. The Act doesn't set out a circumstance where one right to life will not be held equal to another; it sets out a set of circumstances where a right to life may be constrained, specifically that of the foetus. Doctors are specifically required in the Act to have regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable, so when terminating a pregnancy in order to safe the life of the mother, they must also safe the life of the foetus. This observes their equal rights. If it is impossible to save the life of the foetus at that point (not forgetting that this point is where the mothers is life is actually endangered), then it is beyond what is practicable; not saving the life of the mother will result in the death of the foetus anyway.

I'm aware of the legislation. I'm talking about equivalence. I'd like to stick to that topic. Its an incredibly important part of the basis for the law, but doesn't seem to have been well thought through.

Absolam wrote: »

Consider an entirely different circumstance subject to a similar rationale; a young woman obtains a firearm, takes her elderly father hostage and threatens to kill him. Both have an equal right to life. However, Gardai may be justified in taking the life of the young woman in order to save the man. Her right to life is still equal to that of the man, but is constrained by the fact that she poses a lethal threat to someone else. Were their situations reversed, they would still have an equal right to life, but he might be justifiably killed. Just as a foetus might be justifiably killed (or destroyed, if you prefer) when it poses a lethal threat to a mother, notwithstanding the fact that it has an equal right to life; it's right to life is not absolute (any more than a mothers right to life is absolute).

I think it's more because it's inherently obvious your concept of equivalence isn't immediately relatable to the concept of equal rights set out in the Constitution right to life?

Lets develop this.
That same woman is in an IVF clinic with a blowtorch pointed at a tray of embryos.
Could the Gardaí justify ending her life to prevent her turning the blowtorch on?

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Lets develop this.
That same woman is in an IVF clinic with a blowtorch pointed at a tray of embryos.
Could the Gardaí justify ending her life to prevent her turning the blowtorch on?

No, because the legislation only protects implanted embryos. Try again.

Lets say, a load of pregnant women lined up on trolleys, and the same loon hovering over them with the blowtorch.

Carry on....

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

It's hard to say how much of what I think about this equivalence thing you can comment on, since you have me on ignore you can't have seen what I've posted. I may have given the equivalence thing a bit more thought that you've given the ignore thing...

Funny how it bothers people to know they're on Ignore, I knew you wouldn't be able to avoid making the comment. FWIW, when not signed in, one sees all posts, so that's another way I can't avoid seeing some at least of your posts. Don't worry, it's only occasional, but you probably will get the occasional reply from me too. But it will only be occasional.

Absolam wrote: »

Whilst there was a time when the death of a prospective mother could assure the life of an infant, I suspect that is rarely the case anymore, if it ever is. If it were ( I said I'd come to this), it seems to me that the doctor would only have cause to deliberately take the life of the mother if she posed a lethal threat to the infant which could only be alleviated by doing so. In that (I suspect almost impossible) circumstance, I don't see a reason not to apply the same standard we would if any other person posed a lethal threat to someone.

You're wrong about it being almost impossible. It's just totally unimaginable nowadays, which is different. Caesarean sections were developed as a way of saving the baby by generally killing the mother.

The only reason they don't still kill the mother is because no doctor would go ahead with one before the mother's personal safety could be assured - and that can clearly lead to a conflict between the interests of mother and baby.
A conflict which no-one in our society (except you and possibly YD!) would ever resolve to the detriment of the mother.

The baby just has to take its chances while the mother is being properly prepped for surgery.

IOW, there is no real equivalence. The mother always takes priority even when her body is killing the fetus (eclampsia for example, where the mother's sky high blood pressure effectively seals off the placenta, suffocating the viable baby).

recedite

recedite wrote: »

No, because the legislation only protects implanted embryos. Try again.

Lets say, a load of pregnant women lined up on trolleys, and the same loon hovering over them with the blowtorch.

Carry on....

Using the law as a defense of the law whilst discussing that law is a circular argument.

I'm avoiding making that mistake.

You are not.

Absolam entered the 'justification' term, I simply developed their scenario. I didn't see anything about illegal or legal in their scenario, and was hoping we were discussing how to formulate those rules.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Using the law as a defense of the law whilst discussing that law is a circular argument...

I didn't see anything about illegal or legal in their scenario, and was hoping we were discussing how to formulate those rules.

WTF..?
You want to write your own laws? Go ahead.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

WTF..?
You want to write your own laws? Go ahead.

I don't understand your issues here?

This is a discussion on abortion, surely we're allowed discuss the formulation of the laws on abortion? The reasons behind those laws? The problems that those laws might create? Alternative formulation for laws, and their potential issues and/or differences from the current setup?

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

No, because the legislation only protects implanted embryos.

This is true, and is the proof that the law is actually about controlling pregnant women, not about protecting the "unique human being" that is the embryo. Or is there some inherent flaw in IVF embryos that makes them less human than ones created by the "oops" factor? Or indeed by rape?

And of course the question was about the moral equivalence, not merely the legal equivalence, between woman and fetus - so the question is still perfectly valid.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand your issues here?

This is a discussion on abortion, surely we're allowed discuss the formulation of the laws on abortion? The reasons behind those laws? The problems that those laws might create? Alternative formulation for laws, and their potential issues and/or differences from the current setup?

Let me help you out here. Before you launch your attack, first pick your target.
Civil law has deemed that independent life begins at implantation, and protects the life of the unborn from that point.
RCC Canon Law deems that life begins at conception.
In your scenario, you propose that Gardai would be asked to defend the tray of embryos, ie the Canon Law position. And then you expected to ridicule that. Your target is a strawman, which you have created yourself.

Obviously you have your own laws in mind, so at what point would you start protecting human life? Only after the birth? Would you include premature babies delivered by caesarean, or would you go with a date 9 months after conception?

Qs

I was watching some youtube videos last night and noticed an anti-abortion ad pop up. No doubt from the same crowd that were flooding YT with anti-marriage equality ads before the referendum. I'm just surprised they are acting so early. I think they'll be a lot better at winning people over if we do get an abortion referendum soon.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Not in the slightest? If there exists an equivalence which implies there is no difference in expected value between either outcome, it is wholly irrelevant (in terms of value) which procedure is chosen. There should be no bias for one over the other.

And yet you immediately move from 'there is no difference in expected value between either outcome' to 'the highest expected value outcome would be to arbitrarily select either procedure A or B', and move forward based on that proposition which is contrary to the initial proposition. Moving to your new premise refutes the initial premise.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm aware of the legislation. I'm talking about equivalence. I'd like to stick to that topic. Its an incredibly important part of the basis for the law, but doesn't seem to have been well thought through.

I don't think you've established your concept has anything to do with the law at all?

Deleted User wrote: »

Lets develop this. That same woman is in an IVF clinic with a blowtorch pointed at a tray of embryos. Could the Gardaí justify ending her life to prevent her turning the blowtorch on?

How does that develop this? A trayful of embryos has no recognition in law, unlike an unborn or born person. Since the woman does not present a lethal threat to anything recognised as having a right to life, what justification would a Garda have for ending her life?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Funny how it bothers people to know they're on Ignore, I knew you wouldn't be able to avoid making the comment. FWIW, when not signed in, one sees all posts, so that's another way I can't avoid seeing some at least of your posts. Don't worry, it's only occasional, but you probably will get the occasional reply from me too. But it will only be occasional.

You do tend to talk about it a lot. I have noticed how 'occasionally' you feel you have a suitable riposte, but I'm assured it's because you accidentally only see the ones you want to reply to

volchitsa wrote: »

You're wrong about it being almost impossible. It's just totally unimaginable nowadays, which is different. Caesarean sections were developed as a way of saving the baby by generally killing the mother.

So when you say it's totally unimaginable, what do you ascribe that to? The fact that the possibility of it occurring is so infinitesimally small that no one is very aware of it? Sounds quite like almost impossible...

volchitsa wrote: »

The only reason they don't still kill the mother is because no doctor would go ahead with one before the mother's personal safety could be assured - and that can clearly lead to a conflict between the interests of mother and baby. A conflict which no-one in our society (except you and possibly YD!) would ever resolve to the detriment of the mother. The baby just has to take its chances while the mother is being properly prepped for surgery.

Well really, the reason they don't still kill the mother is because medicine has progressed and it is now possible to save the life of both mother and child in circumstances where previously either or both were overwhelmingly likely to die.

volchitsa wrote: »

IOW, there is no real equivalence. The mother always takes priority even when her body is killing the fetus (eclampsia for example, where the mother's sky high blood pressure effectively seals off the placenta, suffocating the viable baby).

That's in other words? Sounds like a different statement. I thought that emergency delivery was the treatment generally indicated in cases of eclampsia, which would seem to indicate some thought is given to the right to life of the foetus?