Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

lazybones32

lazygal wrote: »

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.

There were 113 other Irish psychiatrists (of 127 who were surveyed) who expressed concerns also. Maybe these doctors were Catholic too, so you can dismiss their professional opinion.

http://www.thejournal.ie/psychiatrists-abortion-legislation-suicide-885632-Apr2013/

lazygal

lazybones32 wrote: »

There were 113 other Irish psychiatrists (of 127 who were surveyed) who expressed concerns also. Maybe these doctors were Catholic too, so you can dismiss their professional opinion.

http://www.thejournal.ie/psychiatrists-abortion-legislation-suicide-885632-Apr2013/

That's a nonsense survey which Casey only carried out to try to drum up opposition to abortion legislation. As I said, she isn't someone I'd accept treatment from. 113 responded out of how many registered practicing psychiatrists in Ireland? Next you'll be telling me to take the Dublin declaration seriously.

Giacomo McGubbin

Nick Park wrote: »

Secularism can be used in several ways. But I would interpret it, when used by solodeogloria, as referring to a society where religion is afforded no special privileges and subject to no special restrictions. A level playing field, where the proponents of any religion, and those of none, have equal opportunities to state their beliefs and promote their values.

The way he refers to 'Orthodox' (capitalised and describing a country) would seem to describe a society where a nationalistic church (such as Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox) uses its power and influence to get extra privileges from the State and to discriminate against others. That certainly describes what is going on in Russia right now.

If I am correct in understanding solodeogloria's use of these terms (and he is free to correct me if I have misinterpreted him) then I am in full agreement with him. I would see life in a secular country that respects basic freedoms as vastly preferable to living under Putin's nightmarish vision of a police State that is joined at the hip to the Orthodox Patriarch.

Yet again I didn't say I approved of Putin or Russia overall. Also Russia is not an orthodox state, what county is ? Putin, like many before him, is using the largest Church in the land, only when it suits, and he'll dump it as soon as it's convenient, just as some of those 'inside' the Church are using it for their own political purposes are well, and they'll also abandon it as soon as it become politically inconvenient again. Do you think your particular Church could never be used and abused from the inside for personal gain and political reasons ? - if it ever became large enough ? Do you think any large organisation or Church or Party or Society is immune from this ? You're living in cloud cookoo land if you think so. As for secularism, true secularism is not a veiled form of state atheism where a state is sanitised of all it's citizens beliefs and convictions, religious or non religious, it's a society where non religion is not preferred as better than religion, and religion is not preferred as better than non religion. It's perfectly possible to cater for both and not take one side to the exclusion of the other. That is true secularism. Also being anti abortion is not a religious belief, it's a simply a belief and acknowledgment in the the right to human life. There are many atheists, who understand this, are anti-abortion.

lazybones32

lazygal wrote: »

That's a nonsense survey which Casey only carried out to try to drum up opposition to abortion legislation. As I said, she isn't someone I'd accept treatment from. 113 responded out of how many registered practicing psychiatrists in Ireland? Next you'll be telling me to take the Dublin declaration seriously.

Have you a better survey from registered Irish psychiatrists to prove your point? I'm dealing with what evidence is available to us. 127 responded and many psychiatrists were given the opportunity to complete the survey. They had their chance to voice their professional opinion and 90% of those who chose to do so, voiced their concerns with what the Govt. proposed.

Your personal prejudice doesn't reflect on any doctor's ability to perform in accordance with the best practices available, so there is no need to keep harping on about who you'll let treat you. Once is enough for you to write something to me.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

There were 113 other Irish psychiatrists (of 127 who were surveyed) who expressed concerns also. Maybe these doctors were Catholic too, so you can dismiss their professional opinion.

http://www.thejournal.ie/psychiatrists-abortion-legislation-suicide-885632-Apr2013/

The link actually says that 302 were surveyed, of which 127 responded.

some questions that spring to mind after reading the article (not directed at you lazybones, just general musings).

How many psychiatrists are registered in Ireland?
Was there any questions as to whether abortion should have be easier to access in general?
Were there any questions as to the impact on women having to go through with a pregnancy against their wishes?
Were there any questions as to the impact of stigmatising women who have abortions, particularly labelled them as murderers/killing children?

Also, if we're going to adopt best medical practices based on evidence (as suggested by linked article) then we can we expect the repeal of the 8th amendment and abortion access in line with other countries?

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

See, the way you added 'it doesn't matter' onto 'it's not a right' there? You know we were discussing the specific human rights you were questioning, yet you felt compelled to add 'it doesn't matter'. Why do you think that was? It's not like I actually said things that aren't rights don't matter, is it... but you did say "What about the pregnant child's human rights?" Once again you're throwing out baseless accusations to get away from your own point.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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"

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

I'm willing to bet you haven't found a definition that includes the foetus of a species' own young as a parasite; your 'by definition' is another attempt to try and twist the facts...

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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.

No, I never condoned any such thing. Nor did I say physical and psychological torture are OK with me. You literally made that up in order to try and cover the fact that you haven't been able to demonstrate specific human rights being violated. Remember?

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

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.

No, I picked you up on your point that "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". I just pointed out that it obviously doesn't. It doesn't matter whether a person becomes, in your opinion a person by gradual degrees, or in one moment, nor does it really matter that you can imagine someone who believed in a notional soul holding the view that it occurs in one moment (or even that you might imagine a person who believed in a notional soul would hold the view that it occurs by gradual agrees); we all believe that it occurs. Since we can't say for certain when it comes into existence, the safest option to avoid destroying a person is to use the earliest possible moment we know that something unique exists at all. Such a perspective does not rely, or even refer to, a notion such as ensoulment.

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

See, the way you added 'it doesn't matter' onto 'it's not a right' there? You know we were discussing the specific human rights you were questioning, yet you felt compelled to add 'it doesn't matter'. Why do you think that was? It's not like I actually said things that aren't rights don't matter, is it... but you did say "What about the pregnant child's human rights?" Once again you're throwing out baseless accusations to get away from your own point.


I'm willing to bet you haven't found a definition that includes the foetus of a species' own young as a parasite; your 'by definition' is another attempt to try and twist the facts...

No, I never condoned any such thing. Nor did I say physical and psychological torture are OK with me. You literally made that up in order to try and cover the fact that you haven't been able to demonstrate specific human rights being violated. Remember?

30 second d Google search

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-fetus-be-scientifically-and-biologically-categorized-as-a-parasite

One exception to the rule is a species of jellyfish called narcomedusae. Among narcomedusae, a baby jellyfish can swim inside into its own mother, while using the mother's body for shelter and nourishment. What makes the narcomedusae unusual is that a baby jellyfish can also usurp the bodies of other species of jellyfish for shelter and nourishment. In other words, narcomedusae engage in parasitic behavior against other species by doing the same things it does to its own species. Another exception is the Japanese foliage spider, which engages in matriphagy (a fancy Latin-sounding word for "eating your own mother"

lazybones32

Delirium wrote: »

The link actually says that 302 were surveyed, of which 127 responded.

some questions that spring to mind after reading the article (not directed at you lazybones, just general musings).

How many psychiatrists are registered in Ireland?
Was there any questions as to whether abortion should have be easier to access in general?
Were there any questions as to the impact on women having to go through with a pregnancy against their wishes?
Were there any questions as to the impact of stigmatising women who have abortions, particularly labelled them as murderers/killing children?

Also, if we're going to adopt best medical practices based on evidence (as suggested by linked article) then we can we expect the repeal of the 8th amendment and abortion access in line with other countries?

They didn't take part in the survey if they didn't submit their response: 302 were invited to take part in it and 127 chose to. It's the most accurate reflection of the psychiatric opinion available.

I'm assuming that the survey would have been sent to every psych. registered with the governing body in Ireland but there must have been some refining parameter, say, psych.'s who have min. 5 years working experience because those numbers average at 1 doctor per +13,000 citizens which doesn't sound right.


How can we adopt best medical practice when the Govt. and other people ignore what our medical professionals tell us? If the medical opinion was split 50/50, you could understand why the vote went either way but when the vote ignores the majority recommendations of the experts, why bother consulting them in the first place?

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

30 second d Google search

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-fetus-be-scientifically-and-biologically-categorized-as-a-parasite

Maybe a little more than 30 seconds would have served you better? I'm not sure Quora answers are quite what one would call definitions; I'm more inclined to call them opinions, and particularly suspicious when those opinions are answers to the rather obviously agenda driven "Can a fetus be scientifically and biologically categorized as a parasite?". Still, from your opinions you found, the first says
"One reason most biologists wouldn't characterize a fetus as a parasite is that a parasite and its host are typically from different species. The parasite improves the prospects for the survival of its species by taking resources from its host, while at the same time reducing the prospects for the survival of the host species. Parasitism within species is a rare exception to the rule.".
The second says "One characteristic of a parasite is that it's an invasive species. A fetus never "invaded" the parent. Its existence began in the uterus, so it cannot be said to have come from the outside and invaded the host.".
The third says
"Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."
And the fourth (whose claim to expertise is 'knowledge in many, mastery in few') says
"Yes, but only under very specific and rare medical circumstances."

Even the text you chose says "narcomedusae engage in parasitic behavior against other species by doing the same things it does to its own species"; it doesn't say the behavior within it's own species is parasitic.

So, not a lot of support for your notion that a foetus is a parasite, even in your own search... is there?

Nick Park

Absolam wrote: »

So, not a lot of support for your notion that a foetus is a parasite, even in your own search... is there?

That all depends. Perhaps Timberr wants the 8th Amendment to be amended with respect to jellyfish and spiders?

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Since we can't say for certain when it comes into existence, the safest option to avoid destroying a person is to use the earliest possible moment we know that something unique exists at all. Such a perspective does not rely, or even refer to, a notion such as ensoulment.

Nonsense. The Catholic churches stance for example that a person comes into existence at the point the sperm fertilises the ovum is considered a bit far fetched by pretty much everyone outside of the Vatican and hard line pro-lifers. Bunches of undifferentiated cells aren't people. Fertilised eggs aren't people. And while some religious traditions might hold otherwise, the vast majority of people who are nominally part of that religion have demonstrated through democratic process that they do not agree. So while some assert this little blob might be a person, most would say not really. So once the fertilised egg is implanted in the uterus, the law in this country would suggest we have a person, so we more likely might have one, though perhaps not as I rather doubt any of the lawyers involved would be able recognise the blastocyte as a person in a line up. We can move forward over time as these might be people progress to probably people and then actual people.

The point is that all these stages are not equal, and should not be treated as such. My personal opinion is that people are sentient individuals that we can refer to using personal pronouns. Fertilised eggs are fertilised eggs. Foetuses are foetuses. Babies are babies. Anyone who considers taking the morning after pill to be equivalent to murdering a baby belongs to the dark ages.

lazygal

lazybones32 wrote: »

They didn't take part in the survey if they didn't submit their response: 302 were invited to take part in it and 127 chose to. It's the most accurate reflection of the psychiatric opinion available.

I'm assuming that the survey would have been sent to every psych. registered with the governing body in Ireland but there must have been some refining parameter, say, psych.'s who have min. 5 years working experience because those numbers average at 1 doctor per +13,000 citizens which doesn't sound right.


How can we adopt best medical practice when the Govt. and other people ignore what our medical professionals tell us? If the medical opinion was split 50/50, you could understand why the vote went either way but when the vote ignores the majority recommendations of the experts, why bother consulting them in the first place?

The problem with your point about best medical practice is that in the case of abortion, best medical practice can't supercede the constitution. That's why things like medical practice, such as abortion, shouldn't be in our constitution. You might be able to find 95% of psychiatrists in Ireland who have medical evidence as to why a suicidal pregnant woman shouldn't have access to abortion, but the people voted in 1992 to allow suicidal pregnant women to have access to abortion. If you want to base best medical practice on actual medical evidence, rather than have it subservient to constitutional law, then you should really be arguing for the repeal of the eighth and its replacement with nothing but good medical practice.
I wonder why Patricia Casey has not continued surveying her fellow psychiatrists since 2013 around the time of the protection of life during pregnancy hearings? Might it be that she knows because the Irish people voted in the right of pregnant suicidal women into the constitution she has no grounds for arguing best medical practice overrides the constitution? Or is it because she simply abandoned her pleas for the state to refuse to legislate on a constitutional right because she knew it was never going to happen?
If she was that worried about best medical practice, she'd have done a lot more than collate responses from 113 respondents to her survey.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

How can we adopt best medical practice when the Govt. and other people ignore what our medical professionals tell us? If the medical opinion was split 50/50, you could understand why the vote went either way but when the vote ignores the majority recommendations of the experts, why bother consulting them in the first place?

does this mean that you would support the removal of the 8th and better access to abortion in Ireland for women?

From WHO 2012 document on abortion(pages 18 and 19):

Recommendations for Health systems

To the full extent of the law, safe abortion services should be readily available and affordable to all women. This means services should be available at primary-care level, with referral systems in place for all required higher-level care.

Actions to strengthen policies and services related to abortion should be based on the health needs and human rights of women and a thorough understanding of the service-delivery system and the broader social, cultural, political and economic context.

National standards and guidelines for safe abortion care should be evidence based and periodically updated, and should provide the necessary guidance to achieve equitable access to good-quality care. New policy and programme interventions should reflect evidence-based best practices. Complex service-delivery interventions require local evidence of feasibility and effectiveness through pilot-testing on a small scale prior to investing resources in scaling-up.

Training of abortion providers must ensure that they have the competencies to provide good-quality care in accordance with national standards and guidelines. Ensuring good-quality abortion care requires ongoing supervision, quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation.

Financing of abortion services should take into account costs to the health system while ensuring that services are affordable and readily available to all women who need them. Costs of adding safe abortion care to existing health services are likely to be low, relative to the costs to the health system of treating complications of unsafe abortion.

Successful scaling-up requires systematic planning, management, guidance and support for the process by which pilot interventions are both expanded and institutionalized. It also requires sufficient
human and financial resources to support the process.

Recommendations related to regulatory, policy and human rights considerations

Laws and policies on abortion should protect women’s health and their human rights. Regulatory, policy and programmatic barriers that hinder access to and timely provision of safe abortion care should be removed.

An enabling regulatory and policy environment is needed to ensure that every woman who is legally eligible has ready access to safe abortion care. Policies should be geared to respecting, protecting and fulfilling the human rights of women, to achieving positive health outcomes for women, to providing good-quality contraceptive information and services, and to meeting the particular needs of poor women, adolescents, rape survivors and women living with HIV

MrPudding

Delirium wrote: »

does this mean that you would support the removal of the 8th and better access to abortion in Ireland for women?

From WHO 2012 document on abortion(pages 18 and 19):

I suspect what he means by "best medical practice" is what medical practitioners that happen to agree with his religiously influenced idea of what best medical practice is rather than, you know, actual best medical practice.

MrP

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Nonsense. The Catholic churches stance for example that a person comes into existence at the point the sperm fertilises the ovum is considered a bit far fetched by pretty much everyone outside of the Vatican and hard line pro-lifers.

Is 'nonsense' a special code for 'I don't want to talk about what you said, so I'll change the subject'? Because I don't see what your opinion of what you think the Catholic Churches stance is has to do with what I said.

smacl wrote: »

Bunches of undifferentiated cells aren't people. Fertilised eggs aren't people. And while some religious traditions might hold otherwise, the vast majority of people who are nominally part of that religion have demonstrated through democratic process that they do not agree. So while some assert this little blob might be a person, most would say not really.

Which is all very interesting as far as your opinion goes, but since there is no scientific basis for determining what a person is, it is all literally just your opinion, isn't it? With just as much weight as the opinion of those who feel that this little blob is assuredly a person.

smacl wrote: »

So once the fertilised egg is implanted in the uterus, the law in this country would suggest we have a person, so we more likely might have one, though perhaps not as I rather doubt any of the lawyers involved would be able recognise the blastocyte as a person in a line up. We can move forward over time as these might be people progress to probably people and then actual people.

Well... more to the point the Courts have held that the implanted embryo is an unborn child with a personal right to life, but since I pointed that out some pages ago you're not exactly providing any revelations here, regardless of what you think of lawyers abilities to recognise blastocysts (which seem unlikely to ever be called upon). So it doesn't appear that anyone needs to move forward over time imagining might be people progressing to probably people and actual people, which is probably convenient all round; we can just say it's a person because we know it has a personal right.

smacl wrote: »

The point is that all these stages are not equal, and should not be treated as such. My personal opinion is that people are sentient individuals that we can refer to using personal pronouns. Fertilised eggs are fertilised eggs. Foetuses are foetuses. Babies are babies. Anyone who considers taking the morning after pill to be equivalent to murdering a baby belongs to the dark ages.

Well, your opinion is that these stages exist and you don't consider them equal, which is a rather different thing. There's no distinction in law between what you consider might be people, probably people and actual people, or any school of philosophical thought (other than your own) and I doubt there ever will be.. certainly not based on your assignment of personal pronouns, regardless of your opinion on who belongs in the dark ages.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

The problem with your point about best medical practice is that in the case of abortion, best medical practice can't supercede the constitution. That's why things like medical practice, such as abortion, shouldn't be in our constitution.

Abortion isn't in our Constitution.

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

Abortion isn't in our Constitution.

so the 8th amendment didn't create a constitutional ban on abortion?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Abortion isn't in our Constitution.

:rolleyes:

lazygal

MrPudding wrote: »

I suspect what he means by "best medical practice" is what medical practitioners that happen to agree with his religiously influenced idea of what best medical practice is rather than, you know, actual best medical practice.

MrP

Is that the old 'abortion is never necessary to save the life of a woman, we call it a termination for situations in which a woman or girk's life is at risk in a get out of jail free attempt to pretend there is no abortion in Ireland' view?

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Well, your opinion is that these stages exist and you don't consider them equal, which is a rather different thing.

That is indeed just my opinion, and since you apparently don't share it let's play a quick game of spot the difference. How many people can you see in the picture below and do you consider them all to be equal?

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

so the 8th amendment didn't create a constitutional ban on abortion?

The 8th Amendment created a Constitutional right to life for the unborn; like I said abortion isn't in the Constitution. And as certain posters are fond of pointing out from time to time, we do have legal abortion in Ireland, albeit in limited circumstances. So, no, it didn't create a constitutional ban on abortion, the Constitutional right to life of the unborn severely restricts the potential availability of abortion in Ireland.

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

The 8th Amendment created a Constitutional right to life for the unborn; like I said abortion isn't in the Constitution. And as certain posters are fond of pointing out from time to time, we do have legal abortion in Ireland, albeit in limited circumstances. So, no, it didn't create a constitutional ban on abortion, the Constitutional right to life of the unborn severely restricts the potential availability of abortion in Ireland.

what was 'the right to life for the unborn' addressing if not abortion?

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

That is indeed just my opinion, and since you apparently don't share it let's play a quick game of spot the difference. How many people can you see in the picture below and do you consider them all to be equal?

Can you provide us with a scientific basis for determining which falls into your categories of might be people, probably people and actual people? As far as I know the law doesn't recognise people as such based on how they look so I'm not entirely sure why you think I would. If it helps you at all though, I consider every person recognised in law to have an equal right to life. Sorry if that doesn't help with your might be/probably/actual issue.

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

what was 'the right to life for the unborn' addressing if not abortion?

It directly addresses the right to life of the unborn, doesn't it?

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

It directly addresses the right to life of the unborn, doesn't it?

Was the 8th amendment implemented with the purpose of banning abortion? If not, what was the reasoning behind the 8th amendment?

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

Was the 8th amendment implemented with the purpose of banning abortion? If not, what was the reasoning behind the 8th amendment?

It was enacted in order to assure the right to life of the unborn by placing it beyond the amendment of the Oireachtas or Courts; abortion was already illegal at the time. Though I think we're wandering a little astray of my statement "Abortion isn't in our Constitution" when we're discussing the motivations behind the 8th; I'll happily agree there were plenty of people with various motives at the time. Just not that any of them put abortion in the Constitution; it's not there.

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

It was enacted in order to assure the right to life of the unborn by placing it beyond the amendment of the Oireachtas or Courts; abortion was already illegal at the time. Though I think we're wandering a little astray of my statement "Abortion isn't in our Constitution" when we're discussing the motivations behind the 8th; I'll happily agree there were plenty of people with various motives at the time. Just not that any of them put abortion in the Constitution; it's not there.

Pro-life organisations worked to get the 8th amendment implemented because they were afraid of a future judicial judgement to allow abortion in Ireland. By passing the 8th, that possibility was now blocked.

Considering how many pro-life groups say that 1000s of abortions have been prevented by the 8th, it's somewhat strange that you would suggest the 8th had nothing to do with abortion.

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

Pro-life organisations worked to get the 8th amendment implemented because they were afraid of a future judicial judgement to allow abortion in Ireland. By passing the 8th, that possibility was now blocked.

Considering how many pro-life groups say that 1000s of abortions have been prevented by the 8th, it's somewhat strange that you would suggest the 8th had nothing to do with abortion.

I'm not suggesting it has nothing to do with abortion at all. I said abortion is not in the constitution. It's hardly surprising that favouring the life of the unborn leaves one opposed to abortion, which takes the life of the unborn. The mistake is in thinking the point is to oppose abortion when it's not; the point is to protect the lives of unborn people,and that necessitates opposing abortion.

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not suggesting it has nothing to do with abortion at all. I said abortion is not in the constitution. It's hardly surprising that favouring the life of the unborn leaves one opposed to abortion, which takes the life of the unborn. The mistake is in thinking the point is to oppose abortion when it's not; the point is to protect the lives of unborn people,and that necessitates opposing abortion.

it was added to stop the possibility of abortion being made available via judicial judgement. How you can say 'The mistake is in thinking the point is to oppose abortion when it's not' when history doesn't agree with you