Abortion Discussion

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

I have no idea. Out medical personnel generally treat both patients to the best of their abilities, apart from the three cases last year where the Sisters of Abortion or some such agreed to dispatch the babies.

So you think suicide isn't a risk to life. Who are the Sisters of Abortion?

Any science links? Or your views on the morning after pill and embryos created by IVF?

Two Sheds

alaimacerc wrote: »

Reported.

:rolleyes:
pervert: to lead into mental error or false judgment.

That's the thing about the english language - sometimes words have more than one meaning.

robdonn

recedite wrote: »

There's a few interesting points in there.
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.

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.

I can't speak towards the methodology of the study or even the information in it (currently sitting in a blood donor clinic so limited to my phone) but I can definitely speak for the cultural bias towards male children by Indian-born U.K. women/couples.

My partner is a midwife in an East London hospital known for not only one of the highest birth rates in the U.K. but also the highest African and Asian birth rates in the country and she has dealt countless times with mothers who would simply not even pick up their newborn if it was a girl. She has described the disappointment and crying of the women, the anger of the fathers. The first few times she came across it she was totally taken aback and had to try very hard to hold back her anger at these people, but she has learnt to just accept it as there is nothing she can do about it.

It's very sad, and by no means a majority of cases, but common enough. The reactions of these people would make me think that the "mental anguish" that you mention could be very real.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Really? Who does the killing? - A stranger who may even enjoy watching the light go out.

Your reasoning must seem slightly perverted, even to you.

When you decide to get the bus to work in the morning do you drive the bus? Is the fact that you do not drive the bus mean that you are not the one that made the fully autonomous decision to take the bus?

As for your "stranger" comment, you are way out of line there.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Are having an identity, a passport, or being counted in population statistics necessary qualifications of being a person?

Other way around. They follow from recognition as a person, according to assorted human rights undertakings and treaties. Or at least, the first two clearly do; the third I would certainly expect to, if the statistics in question purport to be "number of natural persons in a given area".

There are going to be quite a few people who aren't people around the world if that's the case.

Or people with unvindicated rights, we'd normally pronounce that.

Anyway, the rights of a person are set out in the Constitution.

To which add all the other places. Rights at common law, rights enjoyed under statute, the "unenumerated rights" found in SC judgements, and most pertinently here, the rights expressed in the Universal Declaration (equality before the law, right to a nationality, right to property), the European Convention, and the UNCRC.

So that we know what they are, they're placed under the heading "Personal Rights", as a subsection of "Fundamental Rights".

Right alongside, as I pointed out previously, "Titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the State" and "No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen except with the prior approval of the Government." Which "persons" are granted rights thereby?

A notion which has, as I've pointed out on this thread, has also been iterated in Supreme Court judgements.

Good spots, and (at least in hindsight) a nice change of pace from "it's so because I say, and here's some overheated personal abuse for your trouble" that this thread's seen such a recent rash of. But remarkably thin evidence for such an extraordinary (and to quote you yourself, "unreasonable", given the biology and the ) position. Two of these I'd read entirely differently from the way you suggest. The third I'm merely perplexed by. Given the extreme lengths and at times positively contorted lengths the legal system has gone to to avoid the descriptor of "unborn person", this seems entirely anomalous. I've seen no commentary on this, so I'm not sure I should be speculating too far on this for free when traditionally this is done by people on obscenely large daily rates, or else have nice cushy tenured positions.

Some cosmic irony that this comes in what the anti-abortion lobby insists on describing as the "flawed X ruling", too...

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

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.

:rolleyes:

oldrnwisr

recedite wrote: »

There's a few interesting points in there.
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.

OK, let's recap on this a sec.

There are two aspects to the sex-selective abortion argument that has come up in this thread: a) whether it is illegal and b) whether it happens.

Regarding the first aspect, abortion for the intention of sex selection is illegal. It is not listed as a viable grounds under the 1967 Act and the General Medical Council (not the NHS) have also stated that it is illegal. If some women claim mental distress so that they can obtain an abortion under ground C of the Act, even though their true motive is sex selection, this still doesn't mean that sex selection abortions are permitted as Peregrinus claimed, it simply means that the enforcement procedures aren't robust enough to catch this kind of ulterior motive.

recedite wrote: »

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.

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.

OK, firstly, the dataset is reliable. The authors treatment of the data isn't. The entire dataset covers 1969-2005. However, the data on which the authors base their conclusions only covers the period 1990-2005. So the authors excluded 20 years worth of data. This is called cherrypicking.
Now sometimes, cherrypicking data can be valid, for example if you were comparing gay married couples against gay straight couples then it would make sense to only look at data since gay marriage was legal. However, the authors present no reason or justification for excluding 20 years worth of data in their paper.
Furthermore, when the entire dataset is examined (as I showed previously) the "increase" disappears completely. In fact, over the period covered by the entire dataset there is actually a slight (although statistically insignificant) increase in the ratio of girls. The authors have committed the texas sharpshooter fallacy in their paper by cherrypicking data from the overall dataset to suit their conclusions.
Now, what the data does show is that there is a temporal increase in male birth ratios which (as I previously pointed out) the authors attribute to:

"Instead, our results suggest that it is largely due to the extensive use of sex-selective abortion in the wake of widespread availability of prenatal sex-determination techniques."

The problem is that this is entirely speculative. Only 8% of recorded abortions in the UK are performed after the point at which sex can reliably be determined. This proportion wouldn't explain such a rapid shift in sex ratio in the specified period.

Secondly, I raised the idea of confounding factors because a good study should always attempt to deal with confounding factors. I wasn't suggesting that there are a lot of Indian deep sea divers out there but merely highlighting that there are other factors (including environmental and genetic) that can distort or change birth ratios. For example, there is a pretty famous study in genetics which studied a family in France which over the course of six generations of direct mother to daughter descent had 72 females and no males. A good scientist should always display academic integrity and attempt to deal with confounding factors. The authors of this paper do no such thing. They make no mention of other factors which influence birth ratios and whether they considered them in their discussion. That's a big flaw in methodology.

The authors do however highlight other flaws in the available data which further undermines their conclusion. Firstly, they, like you, attribute this phenomenon to a cultural factor but one which they claim is linked to birth order. However they note:

"The limitation of data on births by parity to those occurring within marriage is problematic."

It is particularly problematic when you're trying to establish cultural causal relationships.

Like I've already said, this paper gives some evidence to suggest that there may be sex-selective abortions being carried out among certain cultural communities. However, the evidence doesn't go anywhere near suggesting how widespread this problem is. Also since Indian mothers are a very small subset of mothers in Britain in general, this is not a useful metric in the overall abortion debate. It certainly doesn't lend any support to Two Sheds suggestion that sex-selection abortion is an "all too common reason" for abortion. There's no solid evidence that sex-selection abortion is widespread at all.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

As for legislation, I don't think there has really been any need to place it in legislation so far? The POLDPA manages well enough without it, and that's really the only legislation born out of the Amendment.

The point is that the concept of "person" is endemic in legislation. And indeed in common law, treaties, etc. You acknowledge that foetal personhood stands only on a certain reading of a single right present in the constitution, as amended. If this indeed establishes personhood per se, then it changes the meaning of every such reference. And if it doesn't, and it's strictly "personhood for the purposes of establishing this single 'right', and personhood for no other purposes whatsoever", then it's hardly "personhood" worth speaking of at all, surely.

Overheal

^

Stats for M:F ratio by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio

Specific Analysis of sex-selective abortion, including gender ratio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion

Not found to be very commonplace at all. China's one-child policy helped screw up their population a bit, though that doesn't say definitively it didn't help with population controls.

lazygal

Overheal wrote: »

:rolleyes:

No episiotomies or c sections in the Land of Two Sheds.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Hence the following is a non-sequitur...

What a prescient statement!

So even though the hospital lawyers can claim they didn't know at the time how it would turn out legally, certainly they know now that any fears of prosecution were unfounded and totally exaggerated.
Therefore it could never happen again.

It couldn't happen again because the law has been changed. There's now a defined procedure, essentially amounting to "two docs get to decide between themselves". There wasn't before. As has been pointed out numerous times previously.

Citing this in the context of being "wise" after the fact -- and on behalf of someone else's professional reputation, career, and liberty, at that -- really, really "does not follow".

Overheal

lazygal wrote: »

No episiotomies or c sections in the Land of Two Sheds.

It was called the Land Before Time 2 wasn't it?

The Randy Riverbeast

Zillah wrote: »

Anyone who disagrees with me has obviously fallen under the sway of the evil conspiracy that is working against me.

I hate being a new members. Reminded me of Principal Skinner
https:// memoirsofachildhooddotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/children-who-are-wrong.jpg

Two Sheds

lazygal wrote: »

No episiotomies or c sections in the Land of Two Sheds.

The key word is "want".

Overheal

Don't worry shed, just answer the easy ones and avoid the hard ones. Admitting your wrong isn't manly, just like giving women a choice isn't manly.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

Don't worry shed, just answer the easy ones and avoid the hard ones. Admitting your wrong isn't manly, just like giving women a choice isn't manly.

Have I struck a nerve? It seems so.:D

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Have I struck a nerve? It seems so.:D

No, actually. why would I be upset with you or your argument? It would be like yelling at a child's pillow fort for not being up to code - that's about the strength of your argument/stances foundation. You do you!

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Other way around. They follow from recognition as a person, according to assorted human rights undertakings and treaties. Or at least, the first two clearly do; the third I would certainly expect to, if the statistics in question purport to be "number of natural persons in a given area".

You don't really need to tell me; they were Volchitsas questions, following from (and logically, but not necessarily, deriving from) her question of where in the Constitution a foetus is given the status of person. I'm not sure they necessarily follow from recognition as a person though; the identity of a dog can be recognised, and it is not a person. Having a passport (usually) follows from recognition as a citizen, though the Census is certainly a count of people, which provides most population statistics. In any case, neither the presence or absence of all three of these, or even any one of them, makes a person any more or less a person. Perhaps Volchitsa wasn't trying to give the impression that these were prerequisites for being a person, perhaps she was trying to offer them as characteristics that would demonstrate incontrovertible personhood over mundane personhood. Neither seems all that credible to be honest.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Or people with unvindicated rights, we'd normally pronounce that.

So... 'There are going to be quite a few people with unvindicated rights who aren't people around the world if that's the case', or 'there are going to be quite a few people who aren't people with unvindicated rights around the world if that's the case'?
Or are you saying it is not the case, and there are people around the world who have rights that are not vindicated? I'd certainly agree with the latter.

alaimacerc wrote: »

To which add all the other places. Rights at common law, rights enjoyed under statute, the "unenumerated rights" found in SC judgements, and most pertinently here, the rights expressed in the Universal Declaration (equality before the law, right to a nationality, right to property), the European Convention, and the UNCRC.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say all other places, but there are certainly other rights set out elsewhere; they're just not Personal Rights enumerated in the Constitution.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Right alongside, as I pointed out previously, "Titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the State" and "No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen except with the prior approval of the Government." Which "persons" are granted rights thereby?

You did; when you were erroneously pointing out that personhood has never been inferred by any court judgement, you noted that the 'enumerated personal right' relating to titles of nobility, relates to circumscription thereof.
I'd say every person who might otherwise have a title conferred on them by the State, and every person who is a citizen who might otherwise accept a title of nobility or of honour without the prior approval of the Government is granted a right thereby. A rather odd right, but nonetheless.....

alaimacerc wrote: »

Good spots, and (at least in hindsight) a nice change of pace from "it's so because I say, and here's some overheated personal abuse for your trouble" that this thread's seen such a recent rash of.

Not, I'm sure, that you'd even consider ascribing such behaviour to my own good self.

alaimacerc wrote: »

But remarkably thin evidence for such an extraordinary (and to quote you yourself, "unreasonable", given the biology and the ) position. Two of these I'd read entirely differently from the way you suggest. The third I'm merely perplexed by. Given the extreme lengths and at times positively contorted lengths the legal system has gone to to avoid the descriptor of "unborn person", this seems entirely anomalous. I've seen no commentary on this, so I'm not sure I should be speculating too far on this for free when traditionally this is done by people on obscenely large daily rates, or else have nice cushy tenured positions.

I wouldn't say thin in fairness; you said personhood of the unborn has never been inferred by any court judgement, I pointed out where it was; in the Supreme Court. As to whether it's anomalous, how many Supreme Court judgements describe the unborn as not a person?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Some cosmic irony that this comes in what the anti-abortion lobby insists on describing as the "flawed X ruling", too...

Up there with pro-abortion lobbyists describing the POLDPA 'not fit for purpose'?

alaimacerc wrote: »

The point is that the concept of "person" is endemic in legislation. And indeed in common law, treaties, etc. You acknowledge that foetal personhood stands only on a certain reading of a single right present in the constitution, as amended. If this indeed establishes personhood per se, then it changes the meaning of every such reference. And if it doesn't, and it's strictly "personhood for the purposes of establishing this single 'right', and personhood for no other purposes whatsoever", then it's hardly "personhood" worth speaking of at all, surely.

I don't know if 'endemic' is quite the right word, though the term 'person' is certainly used in legislation I think it is sufficiently elastic that it frequently requires qualification (such as natural person to distinguish an individual from a corporate body). But I never stated/suggested/inferred that the Article establishes personhood per se, only that it includes the unborn in those who are persons. As to whether that's sufficiently personhood to be even worth speaking of; I guess it is because we obviously are.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure they necessarily follow from recognition as a person though; the identity of a dog can be recognised, and it is not a person. Having a passport (usually) follows from recognition as a citizen, though the Census is certainly a count of people, which provides most population statistics. In any case, neither the presence or absence of all three of these, or even any one of them, makes a person any more or less a person.

That other things can have an identity is besides the point as to whether a right to an identity flows from personhood. A right to a passport follows from citizenship. (Though I was tacitly assuming that "passport" was in any case essentially being used as a metonym for citizenship, here.) Exclusion of a supposed person from a count of persons may not be a violation of a right as such, but it certainly calls into the question the basis of compilation of that count. Or more likely, their actual status as a "person", in any meaningful sense.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say all other places, [...]

I should be glad (well, more informed, at least) to know of any (other) place that establishes foetal personhood. I'm only aware of failed attempts to do so, for example in the US and in Australia.

As to whether it's anomalous, how many Supreme Court judgements describe the unborn as not a person?

Now many describe it as "not a fruit salad"? One that described it as such would nonetheless be "anomalous", all right.

But I never stated/suggested/inferred that the Article establishes personhood per se, only that it includes the unborn in those who are persons.

Then I'm at a loss as to what precisely you did mean when you earlier referred to personhood without qualification when you made the initial claim, or your various other faints towards foetal (etc) personhood. "I think it's fair to say there is a perfectly legal basis for foetal personhood." Etc, etc.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

That other things can have an identity is besides the point as to whether a right to an identity flows from personhood.

In fairness, whether a right to an identity flows from personhood hasn't been brought up either by Volchitsa in her question, or by you in your rework, so, as you would say, it's beside the point (which was, you'll recall 'Does it have an identity?').

alaimacerc wrote: »

A right to a passport follows from citizenship. (Though I was tacitly assuming that "passport" was in any case essentially being used as a metonym for citizenship, here.)

You were? Since it was Volchitsas question, I'd be dubious. There are far far more people who are citizens of places than have passports anyway, I doubt that she'd want to potentially exclude them alongside foetuses.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Exclusion of a supposed person from a count of persons may not be a violation of a right as such, but it certainly calls into the question the basis of compilation of that count. Or more likely, their actual status as a "person", in any meaningful sense.

Of course we weren't actually discussing violating any rights though... only whether foetuses were included in population statistics.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I should be glad (well, more informed, at least) to know of any (other) place that establishes foetal personhood. I'm only aware of failed attempts to do so, for example in the US and in Australia.

But we weren't talking about places that established foetal personhood? You were pointing out places in which the rights of a person are set out, remember? Just to help you out:

Absolam wrote: »

Anyway, the rights of a person are set out in the Constitution.

alaimacerc wrote: »

To which add all the other places.

alaimacerc wrote: »

alaimacerc wrote: »

Now many describe it as "not a fruit salad"? One that described it as such would nonetheless be "anomalous", all right.

Only if there were others that didn't. If it were the only one to offer a description, it wouldn't be 'anomalous', it would be 'precedent'.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Then I'm at a loss as to what precisely you did mean when you earlier referred to personhood without qualification when you made the initial claim, or your various other faints towards foetal (etc) personhood. "I think it's fair to say there is a perfectly legal basis for foetal personhood." Etc, etc.

Hmm. I'll let you set out specifically what you think my initial claim was ( a link would help) so that we don't allow any confusion to creep in.
As for "I think it's fair to say there is a perfectly legal basis for foetal personhood.", I'd point out that I specifically noted foetal personhood, rather than personhood per se? If it doesn't seem apparent to you that I intended to convey the notion that there was a legal basis for including the personhood of a foetus in the intrinsic concept of personhood, rather than a legal basis for foetal personhood encompassing the whole of the concept of personhood, then I'm happy to specify that's what I did intend to convey.
Or, to cover the whole of the notion which may help you to a greater degree, I did not say the Constitution sets out what it is to be a person, I said that the Constitution sets out that a foetus is included in what it is to be a person.

alaimacerc

OK, the refreshing novelty's about worn back off by now, so I'll try to cut to what little chase is to be had...

Absolam wrote: »

Of course we weren't actually discussing violating any rights though... only whether foetuses were included in population statistics.

Clearly we're not discussing "whether". We're discussing on what basis they're not. I'm suggesting they're not included in a count of natural persons in a given area because they're not natural persons. If they were such, and not counted as such, there's an implicit (or explicit) exclusion, which seems to me to questionable if there's purported to be a legal basis for such statistics. Iterate as necessary for other such "person and yet not a person" hypotheticals.

Hmm. I'll let you set out specifically what you think my initial claim was ( a link would help) so that we don't allow any confusion to creep in.

I think we're well past "confusion creeping in", and we're several deep into "apparent complete reversal in your position", at this stage.

As for "I think it's fair to say there is a perfectly legal basis for foetal personhood.", I'd point out that I specifically noted foetal personhood, rather than personhood per se?

So "foetal personhood" is now to "personhood" as "minor planet" is to "planet"? I took you to simply mean "personhood of foetuses". (But as I had a similar conversation in real life recently about "round towers" vs "towers which are round", I shouldn't be too surprised.) I certainly don't think you've made any attempt to be consistent about such a distinction, though, much less been in any way clear about it. File under "huh".

Or, to cover the whole of the notion which may help you to a greater degree, I did not say the Constitution sets out what it is to be a person, I said that the Constitution sets out that a foetus is included in what it is to be a person.

That would very much be a lesser degree, I'm afraid.

If piece of legislation (or legal principle, case law, treaty undertaking etc) is framed in terms of "persons" or "natural persons" (without qualification as to citizenship, "at birth", etc) is it your contention that the constitutional provision "includes in" as subjects of these "the unborn"?

Because from that we rather quickly arrive at either "not personhood after all, then", or "complete legal nonsense", it seems to me.

Overheal

Projections indicate at the end of the century, the global population will reach 11 Billion.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/booming-global-population-predicted-reach-11-billion-2100

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Clearly we're not discussing "whether". We're discussing on what basis they're not. I'm suggesting they're not included in a count of natural persons in a given area because they're not natural persons. If they were such, and not counted as such, there's an implicit (or explicit) exclusion, which seems to me to questionable if there's purported to be a legal basis for such statistics. Iterate as necessary for other such "person and yet not a person" hypotheticals.

Clearly? The question was "Is a foetus counted in population statistics?". If you want to discuss on what basis they're not, why not start with on what basis should they be? Then we can discuss on what basis we might decide whether they should or shouldn't be counted as natural persons at all. Luckily, I never said the Constitution was a legal basis for inferring a foetus is a natural person for the purpose of statistical counts of natural persons, just that it was a legal basis for inferring personhood of a foetus But you do rather make my point that the term person is sufficiently elastic that it frequently requires qualification. Such as the qualification 'natural'.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think we're well past "confusion creeping in", and we're several deep into "apparent complete reversal in your position", at this stage.

Should I take that as declining to set out specifically what you think my initial claim was then?

alaimacerc wrote: »

So "foetal personhood" is now to "personhood" as "minor planet" is to "planet"? I took you to simply mean "personhood of foetuses". (But as I had a similar conversation in real life recently about "round towers" vs "towers which are round", I shouldn't be too surprised.) I certainly don't think you've made any attempt to be consistent about such a distinction, though, much less been in any way clear about it. File under "huh".

Feel free to try to make the case for or against your new analogy if you like. I'm happy enough to stick with what I actually said.

alaimacerc wrote: »

That would very much be a lesser degree, I'm afraid.

That's a pity. But at least I tried, eh?

alaimacerc wrote: »

If piece of legislation (or legal principle, case law, treaty undertaking etc) is framed in terms of "persons" or "natural persons" (without qualification as to citizenship, "at birth", etc) is it your contention that the constitutional provision "includes in" as subjects of these "the unborn"?

No, insofar as where a piece of legislation uses the term 'person' without qualification it doesn't render a person excluded by the legislation not a person. For instance The Electoral Act states "every person whose name is on the register of Dáil electors for the time being in force for a constituency, and no other person, shall be entitled to vote at the poll at a Dáil election in that constituency". A person who is not on the register of Dail electors isn't suddenly not a person, they're just a person not entitled to vote, whether they're a foetus, a corporate entity, under 18, or just not on the list. It seems pretty apparent that not every piece of legislation that uses the term 'person' sets out the extent of the term, or necessarily needs to. We probably don't need to specifically exclude a foetal person from entering into binding contracts, for instance, because there are already impediments that prevent it from doing so.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Because from that we rather quickly arrive at either "not personhood after all, then", or "complete legal nonsense", it seems to me.

Perhaps we simply arrive at the fact that it's possible to be legally a person without necessarily being the intended subject of every piece of legislation that uses the term 'person'.

robindch

Two Sheds wrote: »

Really? Who does the killing? - A stranger who may even enjoy watching the light go out.

Two Sheds wrote: »

When achieving an end involves butchering a child, then we should stop and consider what we're really doing.

Implying that doctors might secretly enjoy murdering people and implying that all abortion "involves butchering a child" is needlessly inflammatory.

Tone down the rhetoric, please.

Two Sheds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

Kev W

Two Sheds wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#By_country

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

Is there a point to that link?

Because if we're just posting links to medical doctors who were also criminals, the list is surprisingly long. Here's a fairly recent mass murderer, for example :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman

Amd then there are all those doctors who've murdered people outside of their actual profession. The current president of Syria being just one.

So it's hard to see what you're saying exactly.

Kev W

volchitsa wrote: »

Is there a point to that link?

Because if we're just posting links to medical doctors who were also criminals, the list is surprisingly long. Here's a fairly recent mass murderer, for example :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman

Amd then there are all those doctors who've murdered people outside of their actual profession. The current president of Syria being just one.

So it's hard to see what you're saying exactly.

I think perhaps Two Sheds has switched sides and just wanted to draw attention to this passage from the Kermit Gosnell page:

The seven other murder charges are all of first degree murder; they relate to babies, whom staff have testified they saw move or cry after complete birth, and whose deaths are alleged to have resulted from subsequent lethal action. They arise because of the "born alive rule", a principle of common law which stipulates that by default, for legal purposes, personhood arises – and therefore unlawful killing constituting murder becomes possible – immediately upon the victim's being born alive.

Two Sheds

Gosnell is a product of the abortion industry, as well as representative of it.
ironies abound in this dismaying case of savagery

Ash.J.Williams

Abortion debates are a pain .....

Irish women have abortions daily in the UK....this is dangerous as it's a long sore journey home for them, often alone.....what can we do about this?