Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
Weren't the UN taken over by the abortion lobby along with amnesty international? Why would you use them as a source?
At least its a step up from using holocaust deniers as a source.0 -
The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »Weren't the UN taken over by the abortion lobby along with amnesty international? Why would you use them as a source?
At least its a step up from using holocaust deniers as a source.
Anyone who disagrees with me has obviously fallen under the sway of the evil conspiracy that is working against me.0 -
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child constitutes a very broad consensus.
The science doesn't need explaining for anybody who can join the dots from conception to adulthood. When is a human being not a human being?
When it's a zygote or an embryo. You have quoted one professional opinion. 3 out of 100 scientists would also tell you global climate change is bull****; one opinion does not a consensus make.
As was already established pages ago, the UN convention is policy-neutral: it does not establish any consensus regarding life at conception.0 -
So plainly you find Ireland's "right to life begins at implantation" position to be insufficiently rigorous. Neither has very much to do with science, though.The science doesn't need explaining for anybody who can join the dots from conception to adulthood. When is a human being not a human being?
Ah, Jerome LeJeune, "Servant of God", hobnobber with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and founding president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Obviously a detached, neutral and definitive summariser of the science. And yet strangely unaware of the "plain experimental evidence" of monozygotic twinning and chimeric mosaics. There goes his Nobel Prize, indeed.??? wrote:Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”0 -
This isn't a smart arsed question, honest.
Do those who are very strongly anti-abortion have issues with the morning after pill?0 -
Advertisement
-
alaimacerc wrote: »So plainly you find Ireland's "right to life begins at implantation" position to be insufficiently rigorous. Neither has very much to do with science, though.
Ah, Jerome LeJeune, "Servant of God", hobnobber with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and founding president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Obviously a detached, neutral and definitive summariser of the science. And yet strangely unaware of the "plain experimental evidence" of monozygotic twinning and chimeric mosaics. There goes his Nobel Prize, indeed.
Ad Hominem Fallacy.0 -
This isn't a smart arsed question, honest.
Do those who are very strongly anti-abortion have issues with the morning after pill?
Depends. Often yes: Ultracatholics are in any case opposed to it on the basis of it being contraception. Fundamentalist Protestants typically claim they're in theory in favour of contraception, but if there's any possibility whatsoever of a secondary (or tertiary, quaternary, whatever) mechanism of action being to "destroy unborn life" (defined as starting at conception), they're opposed to that too.
Many people see a distinction between the two on the basis of any or all of: the Irish "life begins at implantation" distinction; the lack of firm evidence that there is any such secondary mechanism of action; and sheer pragmatism.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Depends. Often yes: Ultracatholics are in any case opposed to it on the basis of it being contraception. Fundamentalist Protestants typically claim they're in theory in favour of contraception, but if there's any possibility whatsoever of a secondary (or tertiary, quaternary, whatever) mechanism of action being to "destroy unborn life" (defined as starting at conception), they're opposed to that too.
Many people see a distinction between the two on the basis of any or all of: the Irish "life begins at implantation" distinction; the lack of firm evidence that there is any such secondary mechanism of action; and sheer pragmatism.
I understood about 2/3 of that. Not because it wasn't clear and concise but because I'm a bit think.
Thanks very much for the answer.0 -
Ad Hominem Fallacy.
No, simple factual observations. If you wish to construe an implicit argument from them, consider it rebuttal to cherrypicking argument ad verecundiam. "professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome".0 -
Speaking of degrees - where do you stop? I draw the line at Sex selective abortion. You're saying if conception happens that organism is a human with inalienable rights. So no morning after pill? What about condoms? Do sperm have the right to travel unobstructed up the Fallopian tube? Do eggs have the same right to travel down it without hinderance? Maybe we need to force people to have the maximum amount of sex possible so we aren't infringing on the rights of anyone's sperm to do its business rather than be discarded like so many tissues; so we can celebrate life by making more babies than we can reasonably sustain? Loaded question, I know, but you haven't been clear what you think the line is.The term 'abortion-on-demand' is self-explanatory.
Those who object to sex-selective abortions are limiting a woman's "right" to choose in the same way that pro-life want to restrict such choice.
It's then only a question of degrees... and hypocrisy.
An answer to 'do you support abortion on demand?' is not 'but the law doesn't allow that'.0 -
Advertisement
-
I understood about 2/3 of that. Not because it wasn't clear and concise but because I'm a bit think.
Thanks very much for the answer.
Sorry about that! If the lack of clarity relates to "mechanism of action": point is that MAP primarily acts to prevent ovulation. That's been demonstrated clinically. Therefore it acts as a contraceptive, in the strict sense.
It's been hypothesised that it also can act to prevent implantation in the womb. There's no firm evidence that's the case, however. If it is true, that would in theory make a difference to people who believe that "life begins at conception", and thus that's also an "abortion". But would make no difference under Irish law.0 -
Well Galileo wasn't exactly a founding member of the Flat Earth Society, either. He believed the earth was round long before he found any evidence. Similarly you can't say solely because the guy is pro life or whatever that he is inherently wrong, just saying.alaimacerc wrote: »No, simple factual observations. If you wish to construe an implicit argument from them, consider it rebuttal to cherrypicking argument ad verecundiam. "professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome".0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Sorry about that! If the lack of clarity relates to "mechanism of action": point is that MAP primarily acts to prevent ovulation. That's been demonstrated clinically. Therefore it acts as a contraceptive, in the strict sense.
It's been hypothesised that it also can act to prevent implantation in the womb. There's no firm evidence that's the case, however. If it is true, that would in theory make a difference to people who believe that "life begins at conception", and thus that's also an "abortion". But would make no difference under Irish law.
My understanding of the MAP (without trying to be crude) was that it somehow acted to release any possible fertilized eggs from the womb and thus prevent the possible pregnancy from proceeding.
So is what you're saying that it's not removing the fertilized egg, but is in fact preventing an egg from being created/released?
I had often wondered about it because if what I thought was true was in fact the case then MAP would essentially be a form of abortion and thus unconstitutional.0 -
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child constitutes a very broad consensus.
The science doesn't need explaining for anybody who can join the dots from conception to adulthood. When is a human being not a human being?
The Convention does no such thing. In fact the Convention was very deliberately designed not to take such a position. There was a very real concern during the drafting of the convention that some states would not ratify it if Article 1 was intended to consider the unborn as rights holders (because of the effects this would have on those states' abortion laws). As a result the Convention was left deliberately ambiguous so that as many states as possible could ratify the treaty.
After all, there is a legal framework for interpreting said conventions namely the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969. This convention states that a treaty should be interpreted: (a) in good faith; (b) in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the terms of the treaty; (c) in light of the treaty’s context; and (d) in light of the treaty’s object and purpose.
The problem for your interpretation here is the phrase human being and what is constituted as the "ordinary meaning" of this term. As I have previously posted biology textbooks have long established the criteria under which life is judged and the scientific consensus among embryologists is that a fertilised egg at the point of conception is not a human being:oldrnwisr wrote:"You see, for a long time, there has been a well-defined set of characteristics by which biologists classify life. Most biology textbooks list seven key indicators of life: homeostasis, organisation, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction. The zygote at the point of conception possesses none of these characteristics. In fact, the zygote/embryo/foetus will only acquire some of these characteristics at various stages of gestation.
Take homeostasis, for example. Homeostasis is the "regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature." Now the zygote certainly cannot be said to be homeostatic. In fact, it is debatable whether homeostasis is a characteristic at any stage of pregancy since homeostasis is maintained by the mother's body through the amniotic sac.
Or how about response to stimuli. A zygote cannot respond to stimuli. Take pain, for example. We know from embryology that a foetus cannot feel pain until at least week 16 or after. It's not because we've prodded the foetus with sharp objects and not seen a response but rather because we understand the parts of the brain which are responsible for nociception and we know that these won't have developed before this time.
Now, you could categorise the zygote using an alternate definition of life. However, it isn't possible to formulate a definition of life which would simultaneously include the zygote and exclude the sperm and egg which went before.
A zygote is the building blocks of a human being. But just like in construction, a pile of sand and bricks is just a pile of sand and bricks. It's not a house until it's built. This is made clear by developmental embryologists. For example in Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, Moore and Persaud write:
"Human development begins at conception or fertilization when a male gamete or sperm fuses with a female gamete or ovum to form a zygote (Br. zygotos, yoked together). This highly specialized, totipotent cell is the primordium of a new human being. By birth the zygote has given rise to millions of cells . Although large, the zygote is just visible to the unaided eye. It contains chromosomes and genes (units of genetic information) derived from the mother and father."
or as Lewis Wolpert, author of Principles of Development puts it:
"What I’m concerned with is how you develop. I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don’t want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I’ve spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear … they are not a human being."
A zygote is just as Moore and Persaud describe it, a highly specialised totipotent cell. It has no heartbeat, no brainwave pattern, nothing that we would recognise as a unique individual. It is not meaningfully a human being in any sense of the word and describing it as such is arguing from a fallacy of equivocation. "
I've said this before but it bears repeating here. This is a complex debate and is centred on a balance of rights. There are a myriad of factors to consider and the kind of flawed black and white thinking of which the "life begins at conception" argument is a symptom is not going to help to advance this debate. We know from having studied the issue that blackmarket abortions are responsible for a significant number of maternal deaths and that safe, legal access to abortion is necessary to reduce this. We know that there are cases where abortion is medically necessary due to foetal abnormalities or other negative maternal health outcomes. We know that small as it maybe there are women who experience suicidal ideation due to pregnancy. All of these factors need to be considered and weighed in the overall debate. Introducing an absolutist position about the foetus' right to life based on that life beginning at conception is not helpful to the debate.0 -
-
Yes. That's the effect that's been clinically demonstrated to occur. That's not too surprising, as that's how normal hormonal contraception works, and the MAP is (to a rough first approximation) a massive last-minute dose of such hormones, and is working in a similar sort of way.My understanding of the MAP (without trying to be crude) was that it somehow acted to release any possible fertilized eggs from the womb and thus prevent the possible pregnancy from proceeding.
So is what you're saying that it's not removing the fertilized egg, but is in fact preventing an egg from being created/released?
Other effects have been postulated, and aren't inherently biologically implausible as such, but they're not documented to occur, and best available evidence is that they don't.
It's definitely (I say "definitely"! -- as definite as we can be, in such murky and fuzzy areas as medicine and the law) not unconstitutional. Even if does in some case cause prevention of implantation, the Supreme Court has ruled that's not within the meaning of "the unborn", for the purposes of Bunreacht na hÉireann. The recent "limited abortion" legislation uses the same definition, as did Fianna Fail's failed attempt to tweak the constitution from a few years ago.I had often wondered about it because if what I thought was true was in fact the case then MAP would essentially be a form of abortion and thus unconstitutional.0 -
Well Galileo wasn't exactly a founding member of the Flat Earth Society, either. He believed the earth was round long before he found any evidence. Similarly you can't say solely because the guy is pro life or whatever that he is inherently wrong, just saying.
Indeed. I point out his religious associations to "offset" his scientific credentials. Neither makes him inherently wrong (not inherently right).
What makes him actually wrong is his claim that biological individuation occurs at conception, and that the "plain experimental evidence" backs this up, when it does exactly the opposite.0 -
-
Some additional points regarding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
While Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties shows how treaties should be interpreted, Article 32 also goes on to state that:
“Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to Article 31: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.”
This Article is significant in that it provides an additional framework for interpreting the Convention. Moreover, since the preparatory documents and negotiations regarding the convention are recorded and published by the UN, we can see the debates that went on surrounding this issue at the time. In fact, we can see that the original text of Article 1 of the Convention was far less ambiguous:
"According to the present Convention a child is every human being from the moment of his birth to the age of 18 unless, under the laws of his state, he has attained his age of majority earlier."
You can read the negotiations and preparatory documents here:
Sharon Detrick, ed., The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide to the ‘Travaux Preparatoires’;Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, London, 1992
Jonathan Todres and Louise N. Howe, “What the Convention on the Rights of the Child Says (and Doesn’t Say) About Abortion and Family Planning,” in The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child , by Jonathan Todres et al., Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2006, pp. 163-175; and
Sharon Detrick, A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1999, pp. 133-136.0 -
Let's say - a woman has 2 girls and then finds herself pregnant with another girl, who she doesn't want.
Should she be entitled to abort simply because of the sex of the unborn?
There's no societal pressure and no cultural pressure involved.
According to the reasoning of abortion-on-demand, she should be supported in her choice - don't you agree?krankykitty wrote: »I 100% agree, because it's not for me to decide whether another woman's abortion is "valid" enough for me. I'm not the judge of that.
This is no road to Damascus breakthrough. It’s common sense {It hardly needs saying that anyone who aborts a foetus just because it’s a female is either from a backward/impoverished culture or has other serious problems thus needs a lot of support/education not the kind of “hell yeah!!” support you insinuate pro-choicers would give}.It's refreshing to read a poster who has the courage to say what is obvious, instead of hiding behind the skirts of political correctness.
Until the day comes that foetuses can be gestated in some kind of mass produced white goods machine - you are entitled to push for any interfering, nanny-state laws to control abortion – like the majority in in this backwater jurisdiction still appear to be keen to do (to some degree).
In the meantime, we are talking about human …women…. who carry out this gestating task. They are not machines to be legislated about as if they’re incidental to the debate; as if they are mere ‘things’ - unaware of complex arguments. They generally don’t like being forced to do things (with their bodies) against their will – kind of like me ….. and maybe even you!!
(For me, virtually every sphere of human activity in life is shades of grey……) if only your oh-so-cute, simplistic, black and white, [comforting to you] ideological perfectionism took this into account?
Wouldn’t it just be great one day, if extremist ideologues of forced-birth-at-all-costs had any respect for the bodily integrity of women or at a minimum, even treated them like sentient adults?0 -
Advertisement
-
Squeamishness I'll happily admit to. Both "medical" squeamishness and "other people being allowed to make terrible choices" squeamishness. But to offset that, I also suffer from "throwing people in jail" squeamishness, though. And "chilling effect" squeamishness. "Patently iniquitous" squeamishness, too.Peregrinus wrote: »Generally pro-choice, but squeamish about accommodating some of the choices that might be made.
I would tend to agree, at bottom, that there's a self-defeating quality to the more strident "this is an inherent right, how very dare we even be voting on this" rhetoric. In some of the more extreme cases, it's language that's constructed in such a way as to silence potential allies, while not making a bless'd bit of difference to people that are happily stridently opposed. But I think it's generally inspired from a sincere (and often genuinely deeply offended) place.But that does actually present a problem that we have to confront at some point. If other people - those nasty priests in black frocks, those Iona Institute types rubbing their hands and cackling in their nerve centre in Merrion Square - don't get to veto the choices women make about their own bodies, how come we do?0 -
You're missing the entire point of the abortion debate.This is no road to Damascus breakthrough. It’s common sense {It hardly needs saying that anyone who aborts a foetus just because it’s a female is either from a backward/impoverished culture or has other serious problems thus needs a lot of support/education not the kind of “hell yeah!!” support you insinuate pro-choicers would give}.
Until the day comes that foetuses can be gestated in some kind of mass produced white goods machine - you are entitled to push for any interfering, nanny-state laws to control abortion – like the majority in in this backwater jurisdiction still appear to be keen to do (to some degree).
In the meantime, we are talking about human …women…. who carry out this gestating task. They are not machines to be legislated about as if they’re incidental to the debate; as if they are mere ‘things’ - unaware of complex arguments. They generally don’t like being forced to do things (with their bodies) against their will – kind of like me ….. and maybe even you!!
(For me, virtually every sphere of human activity in life is shades of grey……) if only your oh-so-cute, simplistic, black and white, [comforting to you] ideological perfectionism took this into account?
Wouldn’t it just be great one day, if extremist ideologues of forced-birth-at-all-costs had any respect for the bodily integrity of women or at a minimum, even treated them like sentient adults?
Pro-life want women and their babies to be left alone, intact and undamaged.
Pro-choice want interference, sharp instruments, chemicals, incinerators, humanised-mice and money.0 -
You're missing the entire point of the abortion debate.
Pro-life want women and their babies to be left alone, intact and undamaged.
Pro-choice want interference, sharp instruments, chemicals, incinerators, humanised-mice and money.
Pro-choice means giving women the option/choice to interfere with their OWN pregnancy and not letting others decide for them.
Pro-life is the position of suspending a woman's bodily integrity for 40 weeks.0 -
Where can I get hold of humanised mice? Do they sell them in the Abortion Lobby?0
-
Except that it isn't permitted in the UK. Following some isolated media reports on the issue, the General Medical Council issued the following guidance in 2012:
Sex selection and abortion: keep within the law
"Three cases of doctors allegedly offering abortions solely because the foetus was not the sex preferred by the parents have been reported in the media. Abortions provided solely on grounds of the sex of the foetus are not legal in the UK. We have launched investigations into the fitness to practise of the doctors involved. We also want to remind all doctors that they must work within the law."
Neither the NHS in the UK nor the CDC in the US track the gender of abortions.
In fact since 77.7% (2011) of all abortions in the UK were performed at 3-9 weeks, determining the gender even by the most rigorous tests (i.e. blood sample, CVS or amniocentesis) the results wouldn't be all that reliable.
Furthermore, using one of the few metrics available to even get an indication of whether this phenomenon is happening is birth ratio of girls. Since 1970 in the US this has actually increased albeit only slightly.
Yes, there have been scattered media reports but they are unconfirmed and unrepresentative. The plural of anecdote is not data.
There have been one or two studies claiming that sex-selective abortion is practised in the UK but these studies are deeply flawed, something I have outlined previously here
Sources
NHS Statistics
CDC Statistics
Reduced Ratio of Male to Female Births in Several Industrial Countries
Prenatal sex discernment
There's a few interesting points in there.No not at all.
I simply pointed out the mistakes in logic, methodology and science made by the authors of the paper. If you want to point where I've went wrong or support their conclusions with other evidence then bring it on.
Firstly, although the NHS indicates that sex-selection for abortion is illegal, there is actually no mention of it at all AFAIK, in UK law. So technically this is a true statement by NHS from one standpoint; because all abortions are illegal except those under the circumstances specifically mentioned as being allowed. So if not mentioned, then its not allowed. But this is a very weak argument when we know that abortion is routinely offered to women because being pregnant might cause them a mental distress. From another standpoint, if the woman in question was under some cultural pressure to produce a male heir for her husband, then the knowledge that she was pregnant with a female foetus (particularly if she already had one or two female children) might cause her some genuine mental anguish. In that case it would be legal to abort, just as legal as most other abortions being carried out for "mental health" reasons. Because there is no specific ban on aborting a healthy female foetus, just because it is female.
Regarding the paper "An Increase in the Sex Ratio of Births to India-born Mothers in England and Wales: Evidence for Sex-Selective Abortion"
I don't see how you can say "the methodology is flawed".
Data used is from reliable statistics...
The paper is from 2007, so this data would seem as comprehensive as possible; covering nearly all the time period from the 1967 abortion legislation right up to the time the study was being made.Annual data on 23,420,189 live births for England and Wales from 1969 to 2005 were obtained from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
The graph on P.392 (fig 4) is quite striking, it shows a steady mean increase in the ratio of male live births from 1.04 to 1.10 among "Indian born" UK mothers. While at the same time the rate falls from just above 1.06 to just below 1.06 for UK born mothers. (There is a hypothesis that has been made elsewhere that oestrogen in the groundwater from widespread use of the contraceptive pill is causing a slight drop in the ratio of male births in some western European cities, but that's another topic)
Small sample size is not a valid criticism here. 100% of the relevant demographic has been sampled.
You mentioned that the higher rate could be due to some other factor present among the immigrants, not necessarily their (undisputed) cultural preference for male children. Possibly an environmental factor.
Interestingly it is mentioned in one of your other links there that there seems to be one category of people who produce twice as many female children as males; male deep sea divers. (ALTERED SEX RATIO IN CHILDREN OF DIVERS) The higher barometric pressures they experience seems to cause it. It would be interesting to see whether low pressures such as pertain at high mountain altitudes would have the opposite effect. In the Indian study, they mentioned that in the Punjab, up near the Himalayas, the highest Indian male birth ratio is recorded at 1.20. Although the paper suggests this is due to Punjabi culture and/or abortion practices..
Anyway, regardless of any barometric pressure issues, Indian-born women in the UK are living under similar environmental conditions to their UK-born counterparts, yet their ratio of male live births has been rising.Those differences correspond to regional differences in the status and treatment of females (Retherford and Roy 2003) and show a persistence in the regional pattern of mortality arising from postnatal bias against females (Visaria 1967). The trends have been interpreted as evidence of an increase in sex-selective induced abortion0 -
-
Really? Who does the killing? - A stranger who may even enjoy watching the light go out.Pro-choice means giving women the option/choice to interfere with their OWN pregnancy and not letting others decide for them.
Pro-life is the position of suspending a woman's bodily integrity for 40 weeks.
Your reasoning must seem slightly perverted, even to you.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement