Abortion Discussion

recedite

lazygal wrote: »

Meaning that a brain dead pregnant woman has fewer rights than a living pregnant woman. In no other circumstances would a woman be kept alive solely to ensure someone else has his or her right to life vindicated.

Yes. Is there a problem with that?

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

Yes. Is there a problem with that?

Yes there is. Pregnant women who are brain dead have fewer rights than non pregnant brain dead people. Is that acceptable? In no other circumstances is it acceptable to keep a brain dead person "alive" so someone else can live. If I'm brain dead I don't have to be kept alive if my born children need an organ transplant. But I can be if I'm pregnant. I don't want my children seeing their mother rotting away while I'm forced to gestate a foetus.

recedite

That's a different statement altogether.
When you're dead you don't have much in the way of rights, whether pregnant or not. IMO its better to worry about the rights of the living.

Two Sheds

lazygal wrote: »

Yes there is. Pregnant women who are brain dead have fewer rights than non pregnant brain dead people. Is that acceptable? In no other circumstances is it acceptable to keep a brain dead person "alive" so someone else can live. If I'm brain dead I don't have to be kept alive if my born children need an organ transplant. But I can be if I'm pregnant. I don't want my children seeing their mother rotting away while I'm forced to gestate a foetus.

This has been dealt with in the courts.

Hotblack Desiato

Two Sheds wrote: »

As predicted, it now appears that those calling for abortion in the case of fatal foetal impairment have extended their demand to include the disabled.

Am I supposed to be outraged, or something?

You don't grasp the concept that it is wrong to oblige any woman to remain pregnant against her wishes WHATEVER her reason may be. And if we can abort healthy foetuses we can certainly abort those with detected major genetic defects, in fact it can be argued this is the more moral course of action.

But would you be outraged if IVF zygotes were selected against the same genetic defects? How many women undergoing IVF would knowingly choose to implant genetically defective zygotes? Would you condemn them for refusing to do so (or just condemn them for doing IVF anyway?) Or is your outrage reserved for the late abortions so many obsess about?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

No, my point was that there was a particular problem, a direct consequence of the 8th, when the doctors' medical advice went one way (that the woman was dead and attempts to maintain the fetus would be inadvisable) but the legal opinion about the fetus' right to life under the 8th went another. In effect it meant they could not turn off the life support before the fetus had actually been declared dead. Or until there was a court ruling.

Really? That doesn't seem to involve anything at all of what you said, but anyways. Which medical advice and which legal opinion are you referring to, specifically? The case that was taken before the Court by the partner of the woman was to withdraw somatic support. Somatic support hadn't been withdrawn by the Health Service despite the fact that she was clinically dead, because to do so would also mean that they were intentionally destroying an unborn human life, which is against the law. That didn't place an unspecified doctors medical advice at odds with some unspecified legal opinion; it was a clear cut assessment of the facts. The Court found that a necessary part of vindicating the right to life of the unborn is to enquire as to the practicality and utility of continuing life support measures; where it is not possible for a pregnancy to continue to a point where any form of live birth will be possible then it is in the best interest of the unborn child that ongoing somatic support should be withdrawn at the discretion of the medical team.
There's no variance between medical advice and legal opinion there, if anything the medical circumstances created an opportunity to test the extent to which the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated, and to provide a greater sense of legal security to Doctors dealing with these issues.

volchitsa wrote: »

And my point about reactions to that case becoming public was that a surprising number of people appeared to feel that the family's wishes (to obey the medical advice) were not paramount, and that keeping the woman on life support was not a barbaric thing to do.

A surprising number of people appeared to feel the case gave rise to a need to repeal the 8th, even though it obviously didn't. Though if it provides grist to your mill, I personally feel it would have been barbaric to withdraw somatic support if continuing it would have resulted in a healthy live birth.

volchitsa wrote: »

Which clearly indicates that had the life support already been turned off without a court case by the time the case came to light, some pro-life activists would certainly have been prepared to take the medical team, and possibly the grieving family, to court over that.

There's seems to be an extravagance of imagination in that statement. On what legal basis would these pro-life activists (who have never said they were prepared to take anyone to court over this) have taken anyone to court?

volchitsa wrote: »

The doctors were well advised, legally, to put the family through hell purely to protect themselves from a possible criminal action. Medically however it was totally unprofessional of them. But that is the direct result of us allowing lawyers to decide upon suitable medical treatment instead of international medical evidence.

The Doctors took extraordinary measures to attempt to save the life of the foetus, which is a credit to their professionalism and dedication to saving lives. On this occasion, as the Court heard, it was beyond their best abilities to bring the child to term, and once they could be sure of that it was reasonable to discontinue the attempt. As medical science advances though, a similar attempt at such a point in a pregnancy will be successful, which is why it was wise of the Court to determine that it should be at the discretion of the medical team whether or not to discontinue somatic support.
There's a lot to be said for allowing Doctors to decide upon suitable medical treatment, with proper legal oversight

lazygal wrote: »

The judgment also stated it was specific to the facts of the case. This scenario could arise again, possibly where a foetus is closer to viability than in the NP case.

The scenario will arise again; there will come a point where lives can be saved in these circumstances. And Doctors will have the reassurance of knowing that in these circumstances a Court has already found it is at their discretion rather than a lawyers whether somatic support should or shouldn't be continued, and the basis on which they should exercise that discretion; the course that is in in the best interest of the unborn child.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You don't grasp the concept that it is wrong to oblige any woman to remain pregnant against her wishes WHATEVER her reason may be.

In fairness, one can grasp the concept, whilst also grasping the concept that it is a greater wrong to kill someone. Even if you don't subscribe to the concept that it is wrong to kill someone WHATEVER your reason may be.

Two Sheds

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Am I supposed to be outraged, or something?

You don't grasp the concept that it is wrong to oblige any woman to remain pregnant against her wishes WHATEVER her reason may be. And if we can abort healthy foetuses we can certainly abort those with detected major genetic defects, in fact it can be argued this is the more moral course of action.

But would you be outraged if IVF zygotes were selected against the same genetic defects? How many women undergoing IVF would knowingly choose to implant genetically defective zygotes? Would you condemn them for refusing to do so (or just condemn them for doing IVF anyway?) Or is your outrage reserved for the late abortions so many obsess about?

... which includes the all-too-common reason of aborting because the unborn is female.

Charming!

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness, one can grasp the concept, whilst also grasping the concept that it is a greater wrong to kill someone. Even if you don't subscribe to the concept that it is wrong to kill someone WHATEVER your reason may be.

Can we understand this to be you suggesting that a fetus is a 'someone'?

Hotblack Desiato

Two Sheds wrote: »

... which includes the all-too-common reason of aborting because the unborn is female.

Charming!

So... ask yourself why that might be? This happens where a lack of educational and economic rights, and religious influences, cause male children to be more valued. In developed societies few care what gender their offspring are.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Can we understand this to be you suggesting that a fetus is a 'someone'?

You can understand it as me acknowledging that a foetus is a person under the Constitution; a person is someone

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

The scenario will arise again; there will come a point where lives can be saved in these circumstances. And Doctors will have the reassurance of knowing that in these circumstances a Court has already found it is at their discretion rather than a lawyers whether somatic support should or shouldn't be continued, and the basis on which they should exercise that discretion; the course that is in in the best interest of the unborn child.

Except the law says nothing about the best interests of the child, only that the "right" of the child to be born alive, even if that means in order to die soon after in pain, or however major its disabilities, must be vindicated. Calling something a right doesn't necessarily make it a good thing, does it? Remember we are talking about the law forcing doctors to go against the wishes of the family (and those wishes were informed by the medical advice the same doctors had given about the fetus' prognosis) - something that doesn't happen when children are born so prematurely that their prognosis is poor.

In this case, the evidence from similar cases around the world is that a fetus left for long periods depending on artificial life support via its mother will have severe malformations. That was the basis on which Ms Munoz' family in Texas won their case forcing the hospital to turn off her life support : the fetus was visibly malformed to such as extent that viability was impossible. The law, in Ireland, doesn't allow such a factor to be taken into account.

Personally, I don't think being born just to live a short painful life is in the best interests of the child. All the more so when it will be motherless.

I realize not everyone will agree - but that, IMO, is where the family's wishes should be paramount. Something that normally occurs in medical emergencies, but not in the case of pregnant women and their fetuses, because of the 8th amendment.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

You can understand it as me acknowledging that a foetus is a person under the Constitution; a person is someone

Excellent circular reference.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

You can understand it as me acknowledging that a foetus is a person under the Constitution; a person is someone

Where exactly is the fetus actually given the status of a person in the Constitution? Does it have an identity? A passport? Is it counted in population statistics?

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So... ask yourself why that might be? This happens where a lack of educational and economic rights, and religious influences, cause male children to be more valued. In developed societies few care what gender their offspring are.

Why would we ask why that might be, when you have already said it's wrong WHATEVER her reason may be? Is abortion SUPER justified when it occurs in societies you disapprove of, or are you suggesting a society ought to be somehow accountable for a woman choosing to have an abortion, even though a woman shouldn't ?

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Excellent circular reference.

Really? Seems pretty linear to me.
It's someone because it's a person.
It's a person because the Constitution says so.
Pretty straightforward.... Now, if I said the Constitution says it's a person because it's someone, that would be a circular reference. But I didn't

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Really? Seems pretty linear to me.
It's someone because it's a person.
It's a person because the Constitution says so.
Pretty straightforward.... Now, if I said the Constitution says it's a person because it's someone, that would be a circular reference. But I didn't

And the constitution is an absolute and unwavering document of truth?

If the 8th was repealed tomorrow, does that mean that you would instantly recognise that fetus would not be a person? Would it instantly impact upon this statement

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness, one can grasp the concept, whilst also grasping the concept that it is a greater wrong to kill someone. Even if you don't subscribe to the concept that it is wrong to kill someone WHATEVER your reason may be.

in such a way as to totally negate it?

Does that statement and the concept not completely and utterly rest upon the constitutional definition? Which we know is at 'the whim' of the people.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Does that statement and the concept not completely and utterly rest upon the constitutional definition? Which we know is at 'the whim' of the people.

The meaning of all words is at "the whim of the people", Emmet. It's not like words drop fully-formed from the heavens. We make them up. They mean what we use them to mean.

And, whatever you or I might think of the eighth amendment, it was adopted by a popular vote, and affirmed by another, and there is still a strong view that if there were another vote it would be affirmed again. All of which lends support to the view that, for many people, "person" does include the unborn child.

You, of course, are at liberty not to use the word in that sense. But you have no right to insist that others should not use it in that sense, or to insist that the true meaning of the word is determined by your usage, and not by theirs.

Arguments about what the law should say on the subject of abortion cannot be resolved simply by decreeing that, in the view of a particular person or group of people, the unborn child is, or is not, a "person".

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

The meaning of all words is at "the whim of the people", Emmet. It's not like words drop fully-formed from the heavens. We make them up. They mean what we use them to mean.

And, whatever you or I might think of the eighth amendment, it was adopted by a popular vote, and affirmed by another, and there is still a strong view that if there were another vote it would be affirmed again. All of which lends support to the view that, for many people, "person" does include the unborn child.

You, of course, are at liberty not to use the word in that sense. But you have no right to insist that others should not use it in that sense, or to insist that the true meaning of the word is determined by your usage, and not by theirs.

Arguments about what the law should say on the subject of abortion cannot be resolved simply by decreeing that, in the view of a particular person or group of people, the unborn child is, or is not, a "person".

I think the only response I can have to this is "so what?".

It's some lovely rhetoric, and of course a nice chin stroker, but I'm not really sure what it adds here.

If the only reason I can support for there to be a law against X is that there is a law against X already, then that is an argument from tradition and not from logic.

Of course if there are many fundamental reasons apart from that existing law that we can use to decide whether or not it is necessary to create that law, then we could use these fundamental reasons to at least discuss the argument in creating a law against X.

'That it is' is not 'that it ought to be'.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the only response I can have to this is "so what?".

It's some lovely rhetoric, and of course a nice chin stroker, but I'm not really sure what it adds here.

If the only reason I can support for there to be a law against X is that there is a law against X already, then that is an argument from tradition and not from logic.

Ab didn't raise the question of the constitution in order to defend a law against abortion; he raised it in response to your challenge to his use of the term "someone" with respect to a foetus. And I think in that case it's relevant; it shows that the concept of "person" is widely employed in this society to embrace the unborn.

It was I who raised connected the issue to arguments about what the law should say about abortion. I didn't express my point very well, I admit, but it comes down to this; the fact that some people (like perhaps Ab) use the term "person" to embrace the unborn is not a strong argument in support of a law restricting abortion. And the fact that others (like perhaps yourself) do not use it in that sense is not a strong argument against such a law.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ab didn't raise the question of the constitution in order to defend a law against abortion; he raised it in response to your challenge to his use of the term "someone" with respect to a foetus. And I think in that case it's relevant; it shows that the concept of "person" is widely employed in this society to embrace the unborn.

It was I who raised connected the issue to arguments about what the law should say about abortion. I didn't express my point very well, I admit, but it comes down to this; the fact that some people (like perhaps Ab) use the term "person" to embrace the unborn is not a strong argument in support of a law restricting abortion. And the fact that others (like perhaps yourself) do not use it in that sense is not a strong argument against such a law.

I've never claimed it as such have I?

I've pointed out that using the constitutional amendment which has ultimately lead to this 'debate' in order to defend that a position that leans wholly upon that amendment is absolutely circular.

The fundamentals behind the statement within the constitution regarding the unborn were not referenced, rather the constitution itself was offered.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Except the law says nothing about the best interests of the child, only that the "right" of the child to be born alive, even if that means in order to die soon after in pain, or however major its disabilities, must be vindicated.

The law says nothing about 'the "right" of the child to be born alive, even if that means in order to die soon after in pain, or however major its disabilities, must be vindicated' either, you just made that up. However, the High Court did speak to the best interests of the child in it's judgement, it said "The Court is therefore satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that, in the best interest of the unborn child, it should authorise at the discretion of the medical team the withdrawal of ongoing somatic support being provided for N.P. in this tragic and unfortunate case. It will accordingly make a declaration and order to that effect."

volchitsa wrote: »

Calling something a right doesn't necessarily make it a good thing, does it? Remember we are talking about the law forcing doctors to go against the wishes of the family (and those wishes were informed by the medical advice the same doctors had given about the fetus' prognosis) - something that doesn't happen when children are born so prematurely that their prognosis is poor.

A law that requires doctors to give their best efforts to preserve the life of their patient even if that is against the wishes of the patients family seems a pretty good thing to me... particularly since I intend to be very wealthy when I'm old.

volchitsa wrote: »

In this case, the evidence from similar cases around the world is that a fetus left for long periods depending on artificial life support via its mother will have severe malformations. That was the basis on which Ms Munoz' family in Texas won their case forcing the hospital to turn off her life support : the fetus was visibly malformed to such as extent that viability was impossible. The law, in Ireland, doesn't allow such a factor to be taken into account.

But it does? If it didn't the High Court would not have been able to hand down the judgement it did; it would have been required to compel life support to continue until the patient died.

volchitsa wrote: »

Personally, I don't think being born just to live a short painful life is in the best interests of the child. All the more so when it will be motherless.

That's fair enough. Personally I don't think anyone should be put to death based purely on your opinion.

volchitsa wrote: »

I realize not everyone will agree - but that, IMO, is where the family's wishes should be paramount. Something that normally occurs in medical emergencies, but not in the case of pregnant women and their fetuses, because of the 8th amendment.

I do disagree; the family's wishes aren't paramount in other circumstances when life support might be withdrawn, so I don't see why they should be in the case of a foetal life either. In Irish healthcare, a patient may choose to refuse care; a family member can only make that choice on the patients behalf if they have been assigned that right. The decision to withhold life sustaining treatment rests with the clinician, who may (even should) consult/discuss the decision with the family (in a recent survey of Irish ICUs this occurred in 75% of cases). Whilst consensus with family members on such a decision is obviously highly desirable, there is no obligation on clinicians to obtain it, or even to obtain consent.
In fairness, it's not an unusual misapprehension; a report on end of life care to the Joint Committe on Health and Children noted:
"The Irish general public as well as health professionals are confused about the role of families in making decisions for incompetent patients and many assume (incorrectly) that families have a right to make decisions about the medical treatment of their loved ones. This confusion can create difficulties for health professionals especially in situations of family conflict. "

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

And the constitution is an absolute and unwavering document of truth?

Does it need to be? For the purpose of my statement, it only needs not to have it's determination of personhood rest on a person being someone for my statement not to be a circular reference, contrary to your assertion.

Deleted User wrote: »

If the 8th was repealed tomorrow, does that mean that you would instantly recognise that fetus would not be a person?

Absent any other legislation assigning personhood to a foetus, I would certainly instantly recognise that there was no legal basis for considering a foetus a person.

Deleted User wrote: »

Would it instantly impact upon this statement in such a way as to totally negate it? Does that statement and the concept not completely and utterly rest upon the constitutional definition? Which we know is at 'the whim' of the people.

It seems unlikely; Hotblack Desiatos statement of concept doesn't rest on the Constiution, there's no reason to think mine does. My proof that a foetus is a person so may be a someone for the sake of the concept rests on the Constitution, but I can as easily assert a foetus is a someone with the same level of proof as Hotblack Desiato provides for his assertion that it is wrong to oblige any woman to remain pregnant against her wishes WHATEVER her reason may be.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

I've pointed out that using the constitutional amendment which has ultimately lead to this 'debate' in order to defend that a position that leans wholly upon that amendment is absolutely circular.

You didn't.
You claimed (incorrectly) that the statement "You can understand 'In fairness, one can grasp the concept, whilst also grasping the concept that it is a greater wrong to kill someone. Even if you don't subscribe to the concept that it is wrong to kill someone WHATEVER your reason may be' as me acknowledging that a foetus is a person under the Constitution; a person is someone" was an excellently circular reference.

Deleted User wrote: »

The fundamentals behind the statement within the constitution regarding the unborn were not referenced, rather the constitution itself was offered.

The Constitution was offered as an existing independent (of my own opinion) basis in Ireland for ascribing the term 'person' to a foetus. Since someone is 'some person' or 'somebody', we can see that there is an independent of my own reasoning cause for determining a foetus is 'someone', other than simply my 'suggestion'.

If you want to argue whether there is any basis for the Constitution determining a foetus is a person other than the will of the people, maybe better to lead with that than questioning whether I'm suggesting that a fetus is a 'someone'... which would seem to be a little astray of what you're now saying was your intended point?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Where exactly is the fetus actually given the status of a person in the Constitution? Does it have an identity? A passport? Is it counted in population statistics?

Are having an identity, a passport, or being counted in population statistics necessary qualifications of being a person? There are going to be quite a few people who aren't people around the world if that's the case. I seem to recall you asking just such questions about identity before, but the answers obviously weren't to your taste at the time.
Anyway, the rights of a person are set out in the Constitution.
So that we know what they are, they're placed under the heading "Personal Rights", as a subsection of "Fundamental Rights".
To aid in comprehension, the word personal is defined at dictionary.com as "of, relating to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private:", Merriam-Webster similarly says personal is " belonging or relating to a particular person: made or designed to be used by one person".
Section 3 of "Personal Rights" (you'll know this already, since it was the 8th Amendment that so displeases you) states
"3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."
The right to life of the unborn is enumerated as a Personal Right, so the State considers the unborn to be a person. A notion which has, as I've pointed out on this thread, has also been iterated in Supreme Court judgements. But I think you knew that already, from the last time I answered the exact same question from you.

Two Sheds

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So... ask yourself why that might be? This happens where a lack of educational and economic rights, and religious influences, cause male children to be more valued. In developed societies few care what gender their offspring are.

Those clamouring for abortion on demand are, wittingly or unwittingly, part of the war against women, which treats a woman as a low class of human.

Gender (female) selective abortion is included in abortion-on-demand and I defy those who want abortion-on-demand to say why the selective killing of female unborns should be excluded from their all-encompassing term, when it obviously isn't.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Those clamouring for abortion on demand are, wittingly or unwittingly, part of the war against women, which treats a woman as a low class of human.

Gender (female) selective abortion is included in abortion-on-demand and I defy those who want abortion-on-demand to say why the selective killing of female unborns should be excluded from their all-encompassing term, when it obviously isn't.

That is complete nonsense.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

That is complete nonsense.

Great argument! I can see this is going to be difficult.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Great argument! I can see this is going to be difficult.

Indeed: when you post something nonsensical, its really hard to offer a rebuttal, as it would only be based upon the nonsense of the originating post.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

People like Stephen Hawking perhaps? -

Motor Neurone Disease (MND)

Perhaps you should find out how Prof. Hawking feels about abortions for his own condition.