Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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?

And where is the right not to have to carry a rapists child set out?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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?

I can honestly see there's not a biology textbook in the world that will describe a species' own young as a parasite. But let's get back to the fact that, unable to support your point you accused me of being ok with torturing people instead. Tell me what you honestly see about that sort of behavior.

lazybones32

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 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?

The psychiatric doctors who were called to share their expertise during that thing which was held within the last 24 months regarding abortion, gave the same advice to the committee or convetion: 'abortion is not a treatment or solution for suicidal ideation'. You can Google it if you really want to know what they said.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

There's no need to be so patronising. I can read,

Then I suggest you do so.

I have consistently made the case that religious dogma has no place in framing legislation, and that our laws should be based on principles that both religious and non-religious people can agree on. I have argued this repeatedly in books, newspaper articles, on TV and radio, and in speeches both in secular settings and in sermons to churches.

I do understand that some of the anti-equality crowd would like to create a smokescreen and try to make a forthcoming Referendum all about religious dogma and people's views on the Church. But some of us are determined to discuss the real issues. It will be about the Amendment in the Constitution that refers to equality of life. And that involves human rights which all of us, religious or not, should be passionate about.

Such a debate will be a lot more productive if both sides do each other the courtesy of recognising that sometimes those with different views to our own still care passionately about equality and human rights.

lazygal

lazybones32 wrote: »

The psychiatric doctors who were called to share their expertise during that thing which was held within the last 24 months regarding abortion, gave the same advice to the committee or convetion: 'abortion is not a treatment or solution for suicidal ideation'. You can Google it if you really want to know what they said.

Only the ones Patricia Casey managed to round up. Others had different views. And Patricia Casey is a patron of a religious organisation, so her Catholic faith influences her views. If a hospital or medical service assigned her to treat me, I would request a different psychiatrist.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Then I suggest you do so.

I have consistently made the case that religious dogma has no place in framing legislation, and that our laws should be based on principles that both religious and non-religious people can agree on. I have argued this repeatedly in books, newspaper articles, on TV and radio, and in speeches both in secular settings and in sermons to churches.

I do understand that some of the anti-equality crowd would like to create a smokescreen and try to make a forthcoming Referendum all about religious dogma and people's views on the Church. But some of us are determined to discuss the real issues. It will be about the Amendment in the Constitution that refers to equality of life. And that involves human rights which all of us, religious or not, should be passionate about.

Such a debate will be a lot more productive if both sides do each other the courtesy of recognising that sometimes those with different views to our own still care passionately about equality and human rights.

I can only do this if I believe that to be true. So far, all opposition to abortion has a religious basis. There's often claims from religious people, like Cora Sherlock, for example, that many people oppose abortion on secular grounds, but I've yet to see this claim as having any truth whatsover.

Why haven't you told me what sanctions women who kill the unborn here should face?

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

And where is the right not to have to carry a rapists child set out?

So unless it specifically states this then it doesn't matter and it's not a right?

I can honestly see there's not a biology textbook in the world that will describe a species' own young as a parasite.

parasite
ˈparəsʌɪt/Submit
noun
1.
an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
"the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes"

But let's get back to the fact that, unable to support your point you accused me of being ok with torturing people instead. Tell me what you honestly see about that sort of behavior.

By denying a rape victim their wishes to terminate a rapists offspring and forcing them to carry to term and give birth then you (by default) are condoning physical and psychological torture on the rape victim.

Delirium

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So unless it specifically states this then it doesn't matter and it's not a right?



parasite
ˈparəsʌɪt/Submit
noun
1.
an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
"the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes"



By denying a rape victim their wishes to terminate a rapists offspring and forcing them to carry to term and give birth then you (by default) are condoning physical and psychological torture on the rape victim.

it's my understanding that a parasite is of a different species to that of the host.

smacl

Delirium wrote: »

it's my understanding that a parasite is of a different species to that of the host.

Not necessarily. Politicians? Bankers? :pac:

Timberrrrrrrr

Delirium wrote: »

it's my understanding that a parasite is of a different species to that of the host.

Yet by definition a fetus is a parasite, especially if it's implanted into the body against the will of the host.

smash

Delirium wrote: »

it's my understanding that a parasite is of a different species to that of the host.

Well it's not, so at least you've learned something new today

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

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.

You seemed to have missed my point, which is simply that 'personhood' doesn't necessarily occur at a specific point as you suggest, but rather grows and evolves with gestation. The notion that there is a unique discrete point in time somewhere between conception and birth, before which there isn't a person and after which there is, seems frankly ridiculous. I could imagine that someone who believed in a notional soul holding such a view, but not for the rest if us.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Why haven't you told me what sanctions women who kill the unborn here should face?

Because I'm concerned about human rights, not about judicial punishments. This is about protection, not retribution.

I want to live in a society that has laws against people being murdered, enslaved, trafficked or raped. It's more important that we have such laws than it is for me to start trying to prescribe what penalties people should face, and indeed who should be criminalised. That's the role of lawmakers and judges.

I do favour compassionate and creative legislation that works to fix problems rather than to exact retribution (for example, the Government's Sexual Offences Bill that seeks to implement the Nordic model to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking, or laws that try to help drug addicts while cracking down on dealers).

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Because I'm concerned about human rights, not about judicial punishments. This is about protection, not retribution.

I want to live in a society that has laws against people being murdered, enslaved, trafficked or raped. It's more important that we have such laws than it is for me to start trying to prescribe what penalties people should face, and indeed who should be criminalised. That's the role of lawmakers and judges.

I do favour compassionate and creative legislation that works to fix problems rather than to exact retribution (for example, the Government's Sexual Offences Bill that seeks to implement the Nordic model to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking, or laws that try to help drug addicts while cracking down on dealers).

Women and girls have always sought and carried out abortions, sometimes with coat hangers or other dangerous implements, because they don't want to stay pregnant. Do you think outlawing all abortions everywhere in the world will prevent girls and women accessing abortions?

I am quite sure it wouldn't. There are many circumstances in which abortion would be the right choice for me and my family. And I am quite sure that I would be able to access abortion, even if it was outlawed, for the right amount of money. Outlawing abortion doens't stop people wanting to kill the unborn. It just means people with money can have safe abortions at a high cost money wise and people without money can have unsafe abortions at a high cost medically.


So Nick, maybe you could tell me how you would stop all girls and women accessing abortions, or wanting abortions, or resorting to the coat hanger method when there are no legal avenues open to them?

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

Because I'm concerned about human rights, not about judicial punishments. This is about protection, not retribution.

I want to live in a society that has laws against people being murdered, enslaved, trafficked or raped. It's more important that we have such laws than it is for me to start trying to prescribe what penalties people should face, and indeed who should be criminalised. That's the role of lawmakers and judges.

I do favour compassionate and creative legislation that works to fix problems rather than to exact retribution (for example, the Government's Sexual Offences Bill that seeks to implement the Nordic model to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking, or laws that try to help drug addicts while cracking down on dealers).

Do you think the penalty for having an abortion should be the same as killing anyone else? Should women who have abortions have criminal records and all the sanctions that go with that. Are women who have abortions no better than the Myra Hindleys of this world?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Women and girls have always sought and carried out abortions, sometimes with coat hangers or other dangerous implements, because they don't want to stay pregnant. Do you think outlawing all abortions everywhere in the world will prevent girls and women accessing abortions?

No, I don't think legal restrictions alone will ever eradicate any practice. But legal restrictions do play their part in changing the way society looks at practices. This is part of creating more civilised societies.

If we follow the logic that we should not proscribe anything unless we believe such legislation will totally eradicate the practice then we wouldn't have any laws at all.

So Nick, maybe you could tell me how you would stop all girls and women accessing abortions, or wanting abortions, or resorting to the coat hanger method when there are no legal avenues open to them?

I do not pretend to have a magic wand that prevents all people from behaving illegally, selfishly, or engaging in risky and self-destructive behaviour. But I am committed to working for a society that seeks to protect the vulnerable and powerless, and which is a fairer, gentler and more less selfish culture.

Nick Park

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think the penalty for having an abortion should be the same as killing anyone else? Should women who have abortions have criminal records and all the sanctions that go with that. Are women who have abortions no better than the Myra Hindleys of this world?

Why quote me, if you just ignore what I said in the quote?

Cut & Paste:

Because I'm concerned about human rights, not about judicial punishments. This is about protection, not retribution.

I want to live in a society that has laws against people being murdered, enslaved, trafficked or raped. It's more important that we have such laws than it is for me to start trying to prescribe what penalties people should face, and indeed who should be criminalised. That's the role of lawmakers and judges.

I do favour compassionate and creative legislation that works to fix problems rather than to exact retribution (for example, the Government's Sexual Offences Bill that seeks to implement the Nordic model to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking, or laws that try to help drug addicts while cracking down on dealers).

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

Why quote me, if you just ignore what I said in the quote?

Cut & Paste:

Because I'm concerned about human rights, not about judicial punishments. This is about protection, not retribution.

I want to live in a society that has laws against people being murdered, enslaved, trafficked or raped. It's more important that we have such laws than it is for me to start trying to prescribe what penalties people should face, and indeed who should be criminalised. That's the role of lawmakers and judges.

I do favour compassionate and creative legislation that works to fix problems rather than to exact retribution (for example, the Government's Sexual Offences Bill that seeks to implement the Nordic model to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking, or laws that try to help drug addicts while cracking down on dealers).

I read what you wrote but I would like more detail hence I asked you to clarify. It's not that deep a question. If you think the unborn are as equal as the born and as deserving of the same rights and consideration do you believe it's appropriate to lump women who have had abortions in with the killer's of the born? It's a simple question

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I don't think legal restrictions alone will ever eradicate any practice. But legal restrictions do play their part in changing the way society looks at practices. This is part of creating more civilised societies.

If we follow the logic that we should not proscribe anything unless we believe such legislation will totally eradicate the practice then we wouldn't have any laws at all.



I do not pretend to have a magic wand that prevents all people from behaving illegally, selfishly, or engaging in risky and self-destructive behaviour. But I am committed to working for a society that seeks to protect the vulnerable and powerless, and which is a fairer, gentler and more less selfish culture.

So in short, you're offering no solutions to women and girls who want abortions other than remaining pregnant. With a bit of handwringing about how selfish we all are these days.

Do you think I am engaging in risky and self-destructive behaviour if I travel to the UK for an abortion? Is that selfish too?

Do you really think all girls and women who have abortions are selfish?

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

Because I'm concerned about human rights, not about judicial punishments. This is about protection, not retribution.

I want to live in a society that has laws against people being murdered, enslaved, trafficked or raped. It's more important that we have such laws than it is for me to start trying to prescribe what penalties people should face, and indeed who should be criminalised. That's the role of lawmakers and judges.

I do favour compassionate and creative legislation that works to fix problems rather than to exact retribution (for example, the Government's Sexual Offences Bill that seeks to implement the Nordic model to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking, or laws that try to help drug addicts while cracking down on dealers).

In general, a law which cannot actually be used against the perpetrators of a crime is worse than useless, and laws that are meant to educate only are not usually criminal laws. Unlike abortion.

But about your examples, it's not true that there are no sanctions for these crimes, rather that some of the participants are treated as victims of the organizers, the drug dealers or sex traffickers, right? But there are people who are the targets of the law and can expect severe sanctions if convicted.

Now, an adult who kills a child is never going to be given an official role of "victim", are they? Not unless there are some very unusual circumstances, and even then they would have to be tried first.

So why should women who have abortions (assuming an abortion is much the same as killing a child) be treated like drug addicts or sex trafficking victims, and not like child killers? Do we think they were tricked or cajoled into abortions by being offered special rates or something?
Should a woman expect the same favorable treatment if the child were six months old? What's the difference?

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I do not pretend to have a magic wand that prevents all people from behaving illegally, selfishly, or engaging in risky and self-destructive behaviour. But I am committed to working for a society that seeks to protect the vulnerable and powerless, and which is a fairer, gentler and more less selfish culture.

You certainly seem to hold very different notions about selfish behaviour and protecting the vulnerable in society than I would. For example, the fact that a male dominated religion would like to take charge of how and when a woman chooses to reproduce to me would seem entirely selfish. Similarly, a girl or woman who finds herself in the dreadful position where she is seeking an illegal abortion as it is the only avenue open to her would strike me as one of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Nick Park

eviltwin wrote: »

I read what you wrote but I would like more detail hence I asked you to clarify. It's not that deep a question. If you think the unborn are as equal as the born and as deserving of the same rights and consideration do you believe it's appropriate to lump women who have had abortions in with the killer's of the born? It's a simple question

No, because we don't judge all killings the same.

For example, we do not demand that a soldier who kills in wartime, or a hangman who executes a prisoner, is treated the same as a Myra Hindley. We would also treat a mother with postpartum depression who kills her children differently than we would treat a paedophile who might kill the same children.

The whole point of coming at this from a human rights standpoint, is that we use legislation (and other means) to create a better secular society. For me that means that taking another's life is, save in the rarest and most extreme circumstances, something to be avoided at all cost. That is why I am opposed to capital punishment and why I am a pacifist.

But we don't get there overnight. We have large sections of our population that think that its a grand thing to kill someone else in the name of your country if the government lets you, and that its perfectly acceptable to abort a child if you don't want to be pregnant anymore.

Creating a fairer and more humane society takes time. I do believe that one day the civilised world will look at the Equality of Life Amendment as a forward thinking human rights measure that was ahead of its time. But I doubt if that will happen in my lifetime.

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

No, because we don't judge all killings the same.

For example, we do not demand that a soldier who kills in wartime, or a hangman who executes a prisoner, is treated the same as a Myra Hindley. We would also treat a mother with postpartum depression who kills her children differently than we would treat a paedophile who might kill the same children.

The whole point of coming at this from a human rights standpoint, is that we use legislation (and other means) to create a better secular society. For me that means that taking another's life is, save in the rarest and most extreme circumstances, something to be avoided at all cost. That is why I am opposed to capital punishment and why I am a pacifist.

But we don't get there overnight. We have large sections of our population that think that its a grand thing to kill someone else in the name of your country if the government lets you, and that its perfectly acceptable to abort a child if you don't want to be pregnant anymore.

Creating a fairer and more humane society takes time. I do believe that one day the civilised world will look at the Equality of Life Amendment as a forward thinking human rights measure that was ahead of its time. But I doubt if that will happen in my lifetime.

We are discussing a specific type of action here. If I decide to kill my son because I don't want to be a parent and deliberately and in my full faculties do that am I the same as a woman who deliberately has an abortion because she isn't ready to be a parent. Either she is or she isn't Nick. Which is it?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

So in short, you're offering no solutions to women and girls who want abortions other than remaining pregnant. With a bit of handwringing about how selfish we all are these days.

I don't pretend to have any magic solution. Anyone who claims they do is a liar.

Do you think I am engaging in risky and self-destructive behaviour if I travel to the UK for an abortion? Is that selfish too?

It might be selfish based on the circumstances. Or it could be that you genuinely think you're doing the right thing.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

The whole point of coming at this from a human rights standpoint, is that we use legislation (and other means) to create a better secular society.

But it is clearly not a secular society if we let religious dogma dictate that legislation, and as per my previous post here, I would hold that the Christian notion of what constitutes a person, and the pro-life stance, stems from religious dogma.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

No, because we don't judge all killings the same.

For example, we do not demand that a soldier who kills in wartime, or a hangman who executes a prisoner, is treated the same as a Myra Hindley. We would also treat a mother with postpartum depression who kills her children differently than we would treat a paedophile who might kill the same children.

The whole point of coming at this from a human rights standpoint, is that we use legislation (and other means) to create a better secular society. For me that means that taking another's life is, save in the rarest and most extreme circumstances, something to be avoided at all cost. That is why I am opposed to capital punishment and why I am a pacifist.

But we don't get there overnight. We have large sections of our population that think that its a grand thing to kill someone else in the name of your country if the government lets you, and that its perfectly acceptable to abort a child if you don't want to be pregnant anymore.

Creating a fairer and more humane society takes time. I do believe that one day the civilised world will look at the Equality of Life Amendment as a forward thinking human rights measure that was ahead of its time. But I d
doubt if that will happen in my lifetime.

This is just waffle, Nick.

You've yet to outline why me killing a six week old foetus and a six week old newborn baby are the same, yet treated very differently in law.

And it was never ever called the equality of life amendment-this is simply an attempt by Youth Defence to rebrand William Binchy's crazy anti abortion amendment. I hope you're not aligning the Evangelical Alliance with people like that.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't pretend to have any magic solution. Anyone who claims they do is a liar.


It might be selfish based on the circumstances. Or it could be that you genuinely think you're doing the right thing.

If my reasons are genuine (what are the genuine reasons, anyway?) am I still selfish if I kill an unborn child? Which is more selfish, taking the morning after pill or the abortion pill, or are they the same?

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

No, because we don't judge all killings the same.

For example, we do not demand that a soldier who kills in wartime, or a hangman who executes a prisoner, is treated the same as a Myra Hindley. We would also treat a mother with postpartum depression who kills her children differently than we would treat a paedophile who might kill the same children.

The whole point of coming at this from a human rights standpoint, is that we use legislation (and other means) to create a better secular society. For me that means that taking another's life is, save in the rarest and most extreme circumstances, something to be avoided at all cost. That is why I am opposed to capital punishment and why I am a pacifist.

But we don't get there overnight. We have large sections of our population that think that its a grand thing to kill someone else in the name of your country if the government lets you, and that its perfectly acceptable to abort a child if you don't want to be pregnant anymore.

Creating a fairer and more humane society takes time. I do believe that one day the civilised world will look at the Equality of Life Amendment as a forward thinking human rights measure that was ahead of its time. But I doubt if that will happen in my lifetime.

Could you unpick this soldier in wartime/mother with post partum depression analogy please? Are you saying that women who have abortions are like one of these two, and if so which?

Or is unwanted pregnancy a different situation again, and no more comparable to either than those cases are to each other? In which case why use them at all here? Except as a facile way of replying to the actual question, which is not about post partum depression (a recognized mental illness, unlike wanting an abortion) nor about professional soldiers and warfare?

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't pretend to have any magic solution. Anyone who claims they do is a liar.

No, but legislators can't just wring their hands and say we don't have an answer - they do have an answer, it's called abortion, and if they choose not to allow women to use that, they need to provide genuine alternatives to that. I don't see very many.

It might be selfish based on the circumstances. Or it could be that you genuinely think you're doing the right thing.

Doesn't the woman know her own circumstances better than you?

How can you be certain that she can never be right, and if you are so certain of this, as you would if she wanted to kill her two year old, then why are you not sure enough of it to want to lock her up, either in prison or in a mental hospital?

It's what would happen if she wanted to kill her toddler isn't it? Or do you think she should be allowed to take a small child abroad to kill it too?

It's this sort of contradiction that removes all credibility from "pro-life" claims, in my view. If they really believed what they say they do, they would be prepared to follow their own thinking to its logical conclusion, but they never are.

MrPudding

Nick Park wrote: »

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.

Stop it. You're making me blush.

Nick Park wrote: »

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.

I won't apologise for using that phrase as there are plenty of people that posting in this forum, though one won't be for a while, that hold this view. What I will apologise for is any impression that I might have given that I think you, or indeed all on the anti-choice side, hold that particular view. I don't think that.

Nick Park wrote: »

You're better than this.

Sometimes I am, often I am not... Frustration does get the better of me sometimes, I am, after all, a mere human, and a flawed one at that.

So anyway, hugs all round, can you address my point now?

MrP

Nick Park

eviltwin wrote: »

We are discussing a specific type of action here. If I decide to kill my son because I don't want to be a parent and deliberately and in my full faculties do that am I the same as a woman who deliberately has an abortion because she isn't ready to be a parent. Either she is or she isn't Nick. Which is it?

Probably not. The extent of our culpability depends on our perception of right and wrong.

Let's use a simple example. A mother in Somalia carries out FGM against her daughter, fully convinced that she is doing something good that will enhance her daughter's life by making her marriageable. On the same day, a mother in Dublin carries out FGM against her daughter, even though she knows that the practice will cause lasting damage and trauma.

Now, the practice of FGM is equally wrong and barbaric wherever it occurs. The violation of the daughter's human rights is equally horrifying in each case. But would we treat each mother as equally guilty? Most people would see a distinction between the two. We would see one as needing education, whereas the other probably should be prosecuted. Our major goal, from a human rights perspective, should be to see FGM eliminated altogether - but we might not get there by treating both mothers the same.

In a similar way, there are those who genuinely think they are doing the right thing (or at least an ethically neutral thing) in aborting their babies. Stigmatising them as murderers will probably not be the most effective way of protecting the human rights of unborn children.