Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Absolam · 12-07-2016 12:35pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you would physically and mentally scar a child to protect a clump of cells that are a few weeks old? Says it all really.

The thing is though, it doesn't say it all. It says a great deal about your position; so long as you think in terms of a clump of cells, it's justifiable.
I'm a clump of cells, so are you. Unless you're the one who raped her, I wouldn't condone putting a gun in her hand and telling her she can kill you any more than I condone her killing her unborn child. As far as I'm concerned the clump of cells that is you and the clump of cells that is her unborn child should have a right to life, and even that doesn't say it all; it just says there's more to this than one sentence alone can express.

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-07-2016 12:35pm

Absolam wrote: »

The thing is though, it doesn't say it all. It says a great deal about your position; so long as you think in terms of a clump of cells, it's justifiable.
I'm a clump of cells, so are you. Unless you're the one who raped her, I wouldn't condone putting a gun in her hand and telling her she can kill you any more than I condone her killing her unborn child. As far as I'm concerned the clump of cells that is you and the clump of cells that is her unborn child should have a right to life, and even that doesn't say it all; it just says there's more to this than one sentence alone can express.

What about the pregnant child's human rights?

Absolam · 12-07-2016 12:37pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What about the pregnant child's human rights?

Could you be more specific?

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-07-2016 12:39pm

Absolam wrote: »

Could you be more specific?

The pregnant child who is raped.

She would be forced to carry her rapists child to term, forced to give birth, she would be both physically and psychologically damaged for life because of this if denied an abortion. What about her rights?

Absolam · 12-07-2016 12:49pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The pregnant child who is raped.
She would be forced to carry her rapists child to term, forced to give birth, she would be both physically and psychologically damaged for life because of this if denied an abortion. What about her rights?

What specific rights are you asking about? Bearing in mind she is not being forced; she is being denied an opportunity to do what she might choose to do. I know the idea of being forced makes for a more appealing sense of injustice, but she is no more coerced into these things than I am forced not to drink and drive, or forced not to occupy my neighbours house after shooting them. I think I've already acknowledged that she will suffer as a result of the rape, and that mitigating that suffering doesn't justify killing someone else.

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-07-2016 12:54pm

Absolam wrote: »

What specific rights are you asking about? Bearing in mind she is not being forced; she is being denied an opportunity to do what she might choose to do.

By denying her an abortion then you are forcing her to give birth!

I know the idea of being forced makes for a more appealing sense of injustice, but she is no more coerced into these things than I am forced not to drink and drive, or forced not to occupy my neighbours house after shooting them. I think I've already acknowledged that she will suffer as a result of the rape, and that mitigating that suffering doesn't justify killing someone else.

Thesee would be choices that you made, a rape victim does not choose to be pregnant by their rapist!

Or are you one of those who believes a woman can stop herself from becoming pregnant via rape?

smacl · 12-07-2016 1:01pm

Nick Park wrote: »

That would depend on how early we are talking, the reasons for the abortion, and what kind of a consensus we reach as to when personhood begins.

Assuming we're unlikely to reach consensus as to when personhood begins, and hence what abortion actually represents, all we can do is look at the stage of pregnancy and reason for abortion. For example, I'm guessing from previous posts, you would consider anything pre-implantation a matter of free choice for the woman in question, which from what I gather is up to about five days after conception. Similarly any situation where the woman's life was at risk either through continuing the pregnancy or through suicide. We're then left with everything in between, say for example the woman four weeks into her pregnancy who has neither the desire nor the means to become start a family? If we change the four weeks into twelve weeks what difference does that make? If any, why, as this would imply an older foetus has a greater right to life than a less developed foetus?

My question is, What if we realise down the line that personhood begins very early indeed? What if we realise that we had legally killed people, either because they were inconvenient, or because they were the wrong gender or had the wrong number of chromosomes? Wouldn't a civilised society try to avoid such a scenario by developing compassionate legislation that respects everyone's human rights?

The obvious corollary here is that what if we realise that personhood actually begins with brain birth, and our draconian abortion laws have led to immense suffering and hardship for many women as a result. Wouldn't a civilised society show more compassion to these woman, rather than put them though this for the sake of some ancient religious dogma that they don't even subscribe to?

Another thought, Wouldn't it be wonderful if we turned out to be the people who were forward thinking enough to protect those who suffering a great injustice?

Wouldn't it just? I agree the discussion needs to be had, and I rather suspect it would be more progressed than it is currently if abortion wasn't so readily available to those with the means to travel across the water. It is worth remembering that the context to this discussion is that we live in a country where abortion is only unavailable to those to sick or poor to travel. Maybe they deserve a thought when we're discussing equality and human rights?

Absolam · 12-07-2016 1:25pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

By denying her an abortion then you are forcing her to give birth!

No, you're not allowing her to choose not to give birth. That may seem like an overly subtle difference, and I certainly agree there's an inevitable result of not offering someone that choice, but that's not the same as coercing or physically compelling them. Giving birth is a result of being pregnant, not of not being allowed an abortion.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Thesee would be choices that you made, a rape victim does not choose to be pregnant by their rapist! Or are you one of those who believes a woman can stop herself from becoming pregnant via rape?

No these are choices that I could make, if I were allowed to. I'm not forced not to make them, they're simply not available to me because they're illegal. A woman may be forced to have sex, and may be pregnant as a result, and as a result of that give birth. Prohibiting abortion doesn't force her to do any of those things, it simply doesn't allow her to choose a course which would permit her not to do some of them.

You haven't mentioned which specific rights by the way; I think I might have distracted you with my additional comments, sorry.

Nick Park · 12-07-2016 1:26pm

smacl wrote: »

Similarly any situation where the woman's life was at risk either through continuing the pregnancy or through suicide.

I'm not in agreement with the suicidality clause. If someone is suicidal then they need the very best help and treatment, but abortion is not a medical treatment for suicidal feelings.

I can't think of any other case in law where we say, "This particular act is normally illegal, but if you're suicidal the law doesn't apply to you and it's OK to do it."

The obvious corollary here is that what if we realise that personhood actually begins with brain birth, and our draconian abortion laws have led to immense suffering and hardship for many women as a result. Wouldn't a civilised society show more compassion to these woman, rather than put them though this for the sake of some ancient religious dogma that they don't even subscribe to?

If it was purely religious dogma I might agree with you, but I believe human rights transcend religious dogma.

Wouldn't it just? I agree the discussion needs to be had, and I rather suspect it would be more progressed than it is currently if abortion wasn't so readily available to those with the means to travel across the water. It is worth remembering that the context to this discussion is that we live in a country where abortion is only unavailable to those to sick or poor to travel. Maybe they deserve a thought when we're discussing equality and human rights?

Inequality and human rights are two separate issues. Abortion on demand is not a human right. Like many things in life it is more accessible to those with wealth and health than to others. It is true that healthy rich people are more able than others to exercise their human right to travel, and so travel overseas to commit an act that may well harm others. The civilised response to such inequality is not to say, "Hey, in the interests of fairness let's make it equally easy for everyone to commit an act that may harm others."

MrPudding · 12-07-2016 1:28pm

Nick Park wrote: »

That would itself be a denial of the human rights of such girls and women according to the Universal Declaration:

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Although the Universal Declaration does not recognise abortion as a human right, it does assert the right to travel - and that human right remains irrespective of the purpose for which the person might be traveling.

Again this is not about using the law to hammer people. It is about how a civilised society respects human rights. Ultimately you don't protect one person's basic human rights by denying someone else their basic human rights. This is why it is not morally permissible for police to torture criminals or terrorists, even if such torture might seem to offer hope of saving innocent lives.

One of the worst aspects of human rights abuses is that the powerful enforce their will on the powerless. I mentioned earlier that the mother is much more powerful than the unborn child. But the State is infinitely more powerful, and once the State starts infringing on basic human rights then we're all on our way to hell in a hand basket. That's why interfering with the right of women to travel would ultimately result in a less civilised society.

Hold on a minute please... Those article 15 rights are not absolute, they are qualified. Seriously, if we can stop football fans from leaving the country because they might fight surely we can stop filthy sluts leaving to murder poor innocent children...?

MrP

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-07-2016 1:30pm

Absolam wrote: »

No, you're not allowing her to choose not to give birth. That may seem like an overly subtle difference, and I certainly agree there's an inevitable result of not offering someone that choice, but that's not the same as coercing or physically compelling them. Giving birth is a result of being pregnant, not of not being allowed an abortion.
No these are choices that I could make, if I were allowed to. I'm not forced not to make them, they're simply not available to me because they're illegal. A woman may be forced to have sex, and may be pregnant as a result, and as a result of that give birth. Prohibiting abortion doesn't force her to do any of those things, it simply doesn't allow her to choose a course which would permit her not to do some of them.

You haven't mentioned which specific rights by the way; I think I might have distracted you with my additional comments, sorry.

The rights of not having her body damaged by child birth or her mind damaged by being forced to carry and give birth to her rapists child.

Absolam · 12-07-2016 1:43pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Hold on a minute please... Those article 15 rights are not absolute, they are qualified. Seriously, if we can stop football fans from leaving the country because they might fight surely we can stop filthy sluts leaving to murder poor innocent children...?
MrP

Have we stopped football fans from leaving the country because they might fight? I know in other jurisdictions police may apply to a magistrate with evidence of violence perpetrated by a person in order to temporarily ban them from attending football matches or from activities such as using public transport on match days or visiting potential violent hotspots, if not outright banning them from travel altogether, though that's obviously not quite the same thing.

The whole 'filthy sluts' and 'murder' obviously not quite the same thing either, but presumably you just inserted those to make your point so much more compelling.

Absolam · 12-07-2016 1:45pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The rights of not having her body damaged by child birth or her mind damaged by being forced to carry and give birth to her rapists child.

Where are those specific human rights set out?

volchitsa · 12-07-2016 1:46pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The rights of not having her body damaged by child birth or her mind damaged by being forced to carry and give birth to her rapists child.

There seems to be a refusal on the pro life side to accept that pregnancy itself is a process, and that the rape is one thing but the enforced pregnancy is a second crime against the person who has been raped. The rapist may have made her pregnant, but the refusal to end the pregnancy does not depend on the rapist. That is a choice made by the Irish health services and is our responsibility as much as that of the rapist.

If someone gets beaten up and is then refused the necessary attention in a hospital, would we really just throw up our hands and blame the attacker for the subsequent refusal of care?

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-07-2016 1:50pm

Absolam wrote: »

Where are those specific human rights set out?

Words fail me.

Absolam · 12-07-2016 1:57pm

volchitsa wrote: »

There seems to be a refusal on the pro life side to accept that pregnancy itself is a process, and that the rape is one thing but the enforced pregnancy is a second crime against the person who has been raped.

I'll stop refusing to accept that the enforced pregnancy is a second crime if you can show where that crime is in the statute books?

volchitsa wrote: »

The rapist may have made her pregnant, but the refusal to end the pregnancy does not depend on the rapist. That is a choice made by the Irish health services and is our responsibility as much as that of the rapist.

It's a choice made by the Irish people by having given a right to life to the unborn; the Irish Health Services don't get any say in it. And yes, I fully acknowledge that like the vast majority of our Constitutional provisions, a large proportion of the current Irish people haven't had a part in that choice, but that's not to be blamed on the Irish Health Services either.

volchitsa wrote: »

If someone gets beaten up and is then refused the necessary attention in a hospital, would we really just throw up our hands and blame the attacker for the subsequent refusal of care?

But we would give the victim of a rape as much, if not considerably more, care than someone who was beaten up. Not killing someone for them isn't entirely denying them any care at all, it's not providing one particular piece of care to them which would kill someone else.

lazygal · 12-07-2016 1:58pm

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm not in agreement with the suicidality clause. If someone is suicidal then they need the very best help and treatment, but abortion is not a medical treatment for suicidal feelings.

I can't think of any other case in law where we say, "This particular act is normally illegal, but if you're suicidal the law doesn't apply to you and it's OK to do it."

If it was purely religious dogma I might agree with you, but I believe human rights transcend religious dogma.

Inequality and human rights are two separate issues. Abortion on demand is not a human right. Like many things in life it is more accessible to those with wealth and health than to others. It is true that healthy rich people are more able than others to exercise their human right to travel, and so travel overseas to commit an act that may well harm others. The civilised response to such inequality is not to say, "Hey, in the interests of fairness let's make it equally easy for everyone to commit an act that may harm others."

This is why I can't believe you're actually interested in human rights-you don't see suicide as a legitimate reason for a woman or girl being able to access abortion, trotting out the usual prolife line about it not being a 'treatment' for suicidal feelings. Yet, women of means and ability like me can head off for as many abortions as we need or want, and you're absolutely fine with this inequality.
There is absolutely no way this view isn't 100% down to your religion. You can claim to be about secular human rights all you like, but none of your posts actually show this. Instead you claim I don't understand your point of view. I do, and it is exactly why I'm no longer religious.

Maybe you could tell me what should happen to a woman who has an abortion here on non-life saving grounds. Should she go to jail?

smacl · 12-07-2016 2:02pm

Nick Park wrote: »

If it was purely religious dogma I might agree with you, but I believe human rights transcend religious dogma.

Agreed, but the notion that an undeveloped foetus, with no nervous function let alone a brain, is a person that should be accorded human rights is a position borne from religious belief, as it requires a notion such as ensoulment. As such I would suggest what you consider to be human rights are heavily influenced by dogma.

This is why I've been asking about the relative worth of the foetus as a person in different stages of development. So while the hard-line pro-life lobby would be pushing an absolutist stance that the stage of pregnancy is immaterial, and the Vatican would be even more extreme suggesting that this all happens at conception, I would think most reasonable people would distinguish between early abortion and say infanticide. Once we do that, and accept that the person grows into being through gestation rather than blinking into existence at a fixed point I think we can reach a better understanding of relative rights of the pregnant woman and her potential child.

Absolam · 12-07-2016 2:08pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Words fail me.

I thought that might happen to be honest.
If it helps you along, they're not here;
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
or here
European Convention on Human Rights
or here
Constitution of Ireland

A right to life appears in all three though, in case you were wondering.

lazygal · 12-07-2016 2:09pm

Nick, does your stance on marriage equality also come from a secular human rights background?

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-07-2016 2:12pm

Absolam wrote: »

I thought that might happen to be honest.
If it helps you along, they're not here;
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
or here
European Convention on Human Rights
or here
Constitution of Ireland

A right to life appears in all three though, in case you were wondering.

So physical and psychological torture is OK with you because it's not listed as a human right?

Nick Park · 12-07-2016 2:14pm

lazygal wrote: »

This is why I can't believe you're actually interested in human rights-you don't see suicide as a legitimate reason for a woman or girl being able to access abortion, trotting out the usual prolife line about it not being a 'treatment' for suicidal feelings. Yet, women of means and ability like me can head off for as many abortions as we need or want, and you're absolutely fine with this inequality.

There you go again. Instead of addressing what I actually post you try to imply false motives.

Are you incapable of engaging in reasoned discussion?

It's a perfectly reasonable position to say that suicidality should be treated according to best medical practice. Our political masters, in their wisdom, have opened a door that says a law doesn't apply to you if you are suicidal. That, in my opinion, is likely to increase the numbers of those who threaten suicide.

I'm not 'absolutely fine' with inequality. But I will defend your human right to use your relative wealth to travel.

lazygal · 12-07-2016 2:16pm

Nick Park wrote: »

There you go again. Instead of addressing what I actually post you try to imply false motives.

Are you incapable of engaging in reasoned discussion?

It's a perfectly reasonable position to say that suicidality should be treated according to best medical practice. Our political masters, in their wisdom, have opened a door that says a law doesn't apply to you if you are suicidal. That, in my opinion, is likely to increase the numbers of those who threaten suicide.

I'm not 'absolutely fine' with inequality. But I will defend your human right to use your relative wealth to travel.

But your opposition to girls and women having abortions is entirely secular?

Absolam · 12-07-2016 2:19pm

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, but the notion that an undeveloped foetus, with no nervous function let alone a brain, is a person that should be accorded human rights is a position borne from religious belief, as it requires a notion such as ensoulment. As such I would suggest what you consider to be human rights are heavily influenced by dogma.

I disagree; why must it require a notion such as ensoulment? It only requires that one decide that any choice of when personhood has occured relies on some developmental milestone, which is essentially arbitrary since it can't be shown that such a milestone contributes anything more fundamental to the existence of personhood than any other (it being a philosophic rather than scientific concept). Since we can't say for certain when personhood comes into existence, but we believe it does at some point, the safest option to avoid destroying a person is to use the earliest possible moment we know that something unique exists at all.
That moment is conception. Any further alteration is a matter of pragmatism; for the State it makes sense to work from implantation, for some people a nervous system, for some brain activity, for some birth. Any point past conception offers the possibility of killing someone; I'd suggest any choice is simply a matter of what people feel they can be comfortable with thinking of as 'practically no possibility at all'.

Nick Park · 12-07-2016 2:23pm

lazygal wrote: »

Nick, does your stance on marriage equality also come from a secular human rights background?

Yes, it does.

My stance on marriage equality was, and still is, that marriage is a societal convention that should not be defined or regulated by the State (this how marriage was practiced for most of human history). Therefore I support the right of all people to marry whoever they want (obviously consenting adults) as a community event without any interference or control from the State. This would also have the advantage of promoting a greater separation between church and State.

In fact the marriage equality I propose is a greater equality than that which was proposed and passed in last year's Referendum.

Nick Park · 12-07-2016 2:34pm

lazygal wrote: »

But your opposition to girls and women having abortions is entirely secular?

My opposition to the killing of unborn children is, like my opposition to slavery or racism, informed to some extent by my religious views. All of us have values that are based on something. That is what motivated William Wilberforce to see slavery abolished and Martin Luther king to fight racial segregation.

But there is a difference, one that I explained in the articles you linked to if you had bothered to read them carefully, between what we think to be morally wrong and what we think the law should proscribe.

Christians believe many things to be wrong, but would oppose any attempts to make them illegal. I think it is wrong for husbands to cheat on their wives - but I would vigorously oppose any attempt to make extra-marital sex illegal. The same goes for telling lies, or praying to Hindu statues.

The law should not enforce religious dogma, but it should protect human rights. So, for example, I think it is morally wrong for Hindus to pray for statues according to my religious beliefs. But I will support the religious liberty of a Hindu to worship in that way if he chooses - because freedom of religion is a human right that benefits all of us, irrespective of our religion or lack of it.

Human rights transcend religion. And that should be good news for all of us who have no desire to live in a Talibanesque theocracy.

Absolam · 12-07-2016 2:36pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So physical and psychological torture is OK with you because it's not listed as a human right?

But I didn't say, or even infer, that these things are ok with me.. I asked you what specific human rights you were talking about when you said "What about the pregnant child's human rights?". How does the fact that you haven't actually come up with anything in any way infer that I could be ok with physical and psychological torture (which people do have rights not to be subjected to by the way)?

Seriously... you can't support your point so you accuse me of being ok with torturing people?

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-07-2016 2:39pm

Absolam wrote: »

But I didn't say, or even infer, that these things are ok with me.. I asked you what specific human rights you were talking about when you said "What about the pregnant child's human rights?". How does the fact that you haven't actually come up with anything in any way infer that I could be ok with physical and psychological torture (which people do have rights not to be subjected to by the way)?

Seriously... you can't support your point so you accuse me of being ok with torturing people?

Exactly this, what of the raped woman/child's right NOT to have to carry the rapists child? Does that women not have the right to body autonomy?

Do you honestly not see how denying a woman the right to terminate this parasite that has been implanted in her against her will and forcing her to carry to term and deliver this child can be seen as physical and psychological torture?

Nick Park · 12-07-2016 2:41pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Hold on a minute please... Those article 15 rights are not absolute, they are qualified. Seriously, if we can stop football fans from leaving the country because they might fight surely we can stop filthy sluts leaving to murder poor innocent children...?

MrP

Mr Pudding, I disagree with you on many issues. But you've always struck me as someone who listens to what others are saying and then tries to use logic and reason to refute them.

Your reference to 'filthy sluts' appears to be a dishonest attempt to imply that those who see abortion as a human rights issue secretly harbour resentment against women for engaging in sexual intercourse, and wish to impose their code of sexual morality on such women.

You're better than this.

lazygal · 12-07-2016 2:42pm

Nick Park wrote: »

My opposition to the killing of unborn children is, like my opposition to slavery or racism, informed to some extent by my religious views. All of us have values that are based on something. That is what motivated William Wilberforce to see slavery abolished and Martin Luther king to fight racial segregation.

But there is a difference, one that I explained in the articles you linked to if you had bothered to read them carefully, between what we think to be morally wrong and what we think the law should proscribe.

Christians believe many things to be wrong, but would oppose any attempts to make them illegal. I think it is wrong for husbands to cheat on their wives - but I would vigorously oppose any attempt to make extra-marital sex illegal. The same goes for telling lies, or praying to Hindu statues.

The law should not enforce religious dogma, but it should protect human rights. So, for example, I think it is morally wrong for Hindus to pray for statues according to my religious beliefs. But I will support the religious liberty of a Hindu to worship in that way if he chooses - because freedom of religion is a human right that benefits all of us, irrespective of our religion or lack of it.

Human rights transcend religion. And that should be good news for all of us who have no desire to live in a Talibanesque theocracy.

There's no need to be so patronising. I can read, and I can see right through the claims that opposing abortion access for girls and women, even those who are suicidal, is secular and not based on religious dogma.

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Comments