Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

lazybones32

smacl wrote: »

.. but does the world really need more people?

Does the World need any people? (If you're questioning about resources I'd recommend an interesting book by Colin Tudge "So shall we reap", the Queen's former advisor on Agriculture)

smacl wrote: »

Probably worth distinguishing any measurable brain waves and those that are indicative of thought as described below. From the linked article the foetus is starting to develop consciousness at week 24. That said, where termination is being considered, the earlier the intervention the better. From what I've read in this regard, the morning after pill significantly reduces the number of later abortions for example. The fact that the state now recognises this as late contraception rather than abortion, even though this is contrary to the Vatican position, is a big step forward. Putting women who do seek elective abortions in a position where they have to travel to get them does inevitably delay the intervention.

I can't actually see what point you're making? Only those who are capable of thought are actually human and even then thet shouldn't be protected as a developing human? Or is consciousness the beginning of being human - but still not deserving of protection?

I invite you to offer the comparison to a sea slug, the next time a woman tells you that she's pregnant. See where such scientific knowledge gets you:)

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

While you acknowledge that the implanted egg has vastly different physical characteristics than a baby or mature adult, you consider it no less of a person. As such, would you be able or willing to list the attributes that you consider make a person a person? Do you consider that the freshly fertilised egg that has yet to implant in the uterine wall share these attributes.

Since, as I've said before, personhood is a philosophical concept, I'm not convinced there are a definitive set of attributes that can be set out as amounting to personhood, though there are obviously some attributes, such as for instance being Homo Sapiens, or alive, without which pretty much everyone agrees there is no person.
In the absence of a definitive distinction, I'd say there is certainly a person at some stage, and accept that people with different philosophical views will dispute when that stage is. Personally I don't see a need to know when; barring accidents or interference once the process has begun personhood is inevitable, so what's the difference? Deciding it's ok to kill someone because they're not yet a person, despite knowing they will be if you don't kill them, seems to be a bit of a cop-out.
On that basis, is it a cop-out to say a freshly fertilised egg that has yet to implant in the uterine wall shouldn't be accorded the same respect? Maybe. I'd say it is distinguished in that the inevitable process of becoming a person (barring accidents or interference) has not yet begun; it can't until the blastocyst embeds. Maybe that's a rationalisation, but it's one I'm reasonably comfortable with.

smacl

lazybones32 wrote: »

Does the World need any people? (If you're questioning about resources I'd recommend an interesting book by Colin Tudge "So shall we reap", the Queen's former advisor on Agriculture)

Not so much resources as advisability of the human population to continue to grow in an unconstrained manner. The advice to go forth and multiply seems entirely inappropriate given predicted world population growth, and is by and large ignored in the western world today where most people plan their families. As a global society, would it not be better for our total numbers to either decline slightly or remain static?

I can't actually see what point you're making? Only those who are capable of thought are actually human and even then thet shouldn't be protected as a developing human? Or is consciousness the beginning of being human - but still not deserving of protection?

I invite you to offer the comparison to a sea slug, the next time a woman tells you that she's pregnant. See where such scientific knowledge gets you:)

The point was in reference to your comment about brain waves after six weeks, and simply to illustrate that brain waves below a certain magnitude are not an indicator of consciousness. I had assumed you raised the six week point as your consider it significant in determining when you consider a sentient person exists in the womb.

smacl

Again, thanks for being candid in your answer. Agreed there is certainly a person at some stage between conception and (live) birth, and we are unlikely to agree on when that is.

Absolam wrote: »

In the absence of a definitive distinction, I'd say there is certainly a person at some stage, and accept that people with different philosophical views will dispute when that stage is. Personally I don't see a need to know when; barring accidents or interference once the process has begun personhood is inevitable, so what's the difference? Deciding it's ok to kill someone because they're not yet a person, despite knowing they will be if you don't kill them, seems to be a bit of a cop-out.

In a modern society where we plan our families to a large extent, the fact is that most couples who want to start a family will do so, so that you could say that the baby or babies are inevitable long before conception. This is typically controlled by the couple using contraception, and more recently the likes of the morning after pill. It may also be augmented by IVF. Becoming a parent is a major undertaking and has become a choice more so than an accident as society progresses. The probability of a chance embryo or foetus ending up as a baby where that baby is unwanted is very far from inevitable, as very many (most?) Irish women in this day and age when faced with an unwanted pregnancy will simply travel to have an elective abortion. Thankfully this is increasingly less necessary with the likes of the morning after pill and better education regarding contraception, but it is still there. You then have to look at which abortions are prevented by those laws that share and enforce your philosophical stance on personhood? Those who don't share your philosophy and have the means and health to travel go abroad for the abortion. Those who do share your philosophy continue with the labour. So basically we are left with the small subset of people that don't share your philosophy and either don't have the means or are too sick to travel. Regardless of your personal philosophy, or our ageing legal system, this strikes me as discriminating against the weakest in our society.

lazybones32

smacl wrote: »

Not so much resources as advisability of the human population to continue to grow in an unconstrained manner. The advice to go forth and multiply seems entirely inappropriate given predicted world population growth, and is by and large ignored in the western world today where most people plan their families. As a global society, would it not be better for our total numbers to either decline slightly or remain static?



The point was in reference to your comment about brain waves after six weeks, and simply to illustrate that brain waves below a certain magnitude are not an indicator of consciousness. I had assumed you raised the six week point as your consider it significant in determining when you consider a sentient person exists in the womb.

I consider brainwaves after 6 weeks significant in determining that a person exists in the womb. A developing person but a person nonetheless.

smacl

lazybones32 wrote: »

I consider brainwaves after 6 weeks significant in determining that a person exists in the womb. A developing person but a person nonetheless.

What do you consider is the significant difference between that and before the measurable brainwaves at six weeks?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Unless somebody died and made you mod, then you don't get to dictate to others that they have to give simplistic one word answers. Explaining why you're actually asking the wrong question and trying to take us down a rabbit trail is not 'waffling' - it's how grown ups discuss and clarify positions.

I have never advanced the position that an egg is the same as a 17-week-old baby, a 35-year-old woman, or a dying pensioner. Nor indeed, are the baby, the woman or the pensioner the same as each other. They're all different.

The question should not be about who is the same as anyone else. The question is whether the law should grant them an equal right to life.

Is having an abortion equal to killing a 17 week old baby, 35 year old woman or pensioner?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Is having an abortion equal to killing a 17 week old baby, 35 year old woman or pensioner?

No, nor is each killing of a pensioner, a baby or a woman necessarily equal. Each case is different depending on the circumstances (which is why some killers don't get prosecuted at all, some are convicted of manslaughter, and those convicted of murder get dramatically variations in their sentence.) While the act of killing is not equal in all cases, that does not affect the principle that each person killed had an equal right to life.

I'm not sure why this very straightforward distinction seems to be so difficult for you to understand.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

No, nor is each killing of a pensioner, a baby or a woman necessarily equal. Each case is different depending on the circumstances (which is why some killers don't get prosecuted at all, some are convicted of manslaughter, and those convicted of murder get dramatically variations in their sentence.) While the act of killing is not equal in all cases, that does not affect the principle that each person killed had an equal right to life.

I'm not sure why this very straightforward distinction seems to be so difficult for you to understand.

What penalties should girls and women who have abortions face? Murder or manslaughter charges? Or no criminal sanctions whatsoever? Or different charges entirely?

What does an equal right to life mean? If I won't donate an organ to someone who needs one, am I taking away his or her equal right to life?

smacl

lazygal wrote: »

What does an equal right to life mean? If I won't donate an organ to someone who needs one, am I taking away his or her equal right to life?

Great point, is the requirement to maintain human life that would otherwise fail restricted to pregnant women?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

What penalties should girls and women who have abortions face? Murder or manslaughter charges? Or no criminal sanctions whatsoever? Or different charges entirely?

THAT WILL DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER LIFE SHOULD BE PROTECTED

Said it louder since you seem to having difficulty in understanding it on the numerous instances I have given you the same answer.

I have no desire to push for anyone's criminalisation. I am keen that our Constitution protect someone's right to life.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Great point, is the requirement to maintain human life that would otherwise fail restricted to pregnant women?

No, it's a pretty awful point.

There is a difference between maintaining human life and acting to destroy human life. Anyone can see that.

For example, I am not obligated by law to provide a kidney for someone who needs a transplant. However, I am forbidden by law to sneak into their hospital ward and turn off their dialysis machine.

Having said that, the law (and normal human decency) does recognise that there are cases where we bear responsibility for a weaker party and are obligated to act to maintain their life. This is certainly not limited to women, pregnant or otherwise. It applies to parents who allow their children to die from neglect, or to a teacher who is taking children to a museum on a field trip. If a child is crossing the road and is about to be hit by a speeding car, then we would expect the teacher, if it is practically possible, to pull the child to safety. The same would not apply if the teacher sees a perfect stranger standing in front of the traffic.

Edit: If we're going to keep asking these very basic ethical problems then I can recommend some decent textbooks on Ethics.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

THAT WILL DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER LIFE SHOULD BE PROTECTED

Said it louder since you seem to having difficulty in understanding it on the numerous instances I have given you the same answer.

I have no desire to push for anyone's criminalisation. I am keen that our Constitution protect someone's right to life.

Except it doesn't, does it? Seeing as the people voted to allow women to have abortions for whatever reason they like, as long as they have the money to go to Liverpool.

So the constituent only makes a vague hand wave at protecting the unborn's right to life.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Except it doesn't, does it? Seeing as the people voted to allow women to have abortions for whatever reason they like, as long as they have the money to go to Liverpool.

So the constituent only makes a vague hand wave at protecting the unborn's right to life.

No, the people, quite correctly, voted to allow women to exercise their human right to travel (as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). We can hardly restrict that right based on what we think someone might do once they travel.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

No, the people, quite correctly, voted to allow women to exercise their human right to travel (as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). We can hardly restrict that right based on what we think someone might do once they travel.

Really? Even when they're travelling to kill the unborn?

There's no need to shout, Nick. I can hear loud and clear that you don't really want to tell me what you think of women and girls who have abortions, and instead want to refer me to some ethics textbooks.

I can tell you what I think of girls and women who have abortions. I think most of them are making the right choice for them given their circumstances, some may regret their choice later down the line, some won't give it a second thought, some may grieve after the abortion and some may go on to have multiple abortions. None of which is any of my business, any more than my decision to remain pregnant was anyone else's business.

I find it very telling that you're unable to tell me what sanctions you think women and girls who have abortions should face. Right now, it's a 14 year sentence in Ireland. Do you think that's the right sentence for a girl or woman who procures an abortion in Ireland?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

a teacher who is taking children to a museum on a field trip. If a child is crossing the road and is about to be hit by a speeding car, then we would expect the teacher, if it is practically possible, to pull the child to safety. The same would not apply if the teacher sees a perfect stranger standing in front of the traffic.

Now this is a pretty awful example. Does the teacher face a 14 year sentence if she fails to pull a child to safety?

Expecting someone to help someone else in a given situation is not comparable to making it illegal for all girls and women to access abortion in Ireland unless their lives are at risk.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Really? Even when they're travelling to kill the unborn?

Yes, it's a simple human rights issue, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You don't have a human right to obtain an abortion on demand.
You do have a human right to freedom of travel.
You do have a human right to life.

There's no need to shout, Nick. I can hear loud and clear that you don't really want to tell me what you think of women and girls who have abortions, and instead want to refer me to some ethics textbooks.

That is a blatant untruth.

I'm very happy to tell you what I think of women and girls who have abortions. I think they are human beings who deserve to have their human rights protected. I think that they are taking a course of action which deprives another human being of their right to life. I think they should be treated with civility, respect and truth. In some cases they are confused. In some cases they are desperate. In many cases they are misled. In some cases they do what they do with a fill knowledge of the consequences. Each individual should be treated as an individual and with compassion.

I find it very telling that you're unable to tell me what sanctions you think women and girls who have abortions should face. Right now, it's a 14 year sentence in Ireland. Do you think that's the right sentence for a girl or woman who procures an abortion in Ireland?

No, I don't think 14 years, or any other prison sentence is appropriate. I am not in favour of criminalising such women (although criminalising abortionists who facilitate them would seen eminently reasonable). I think that the human rights of the unborn child to be protected is important and should be enshrined in law. Criminalising and prosecuting women for having an abortion is not, in my opinion, the best way to protect those unborn children.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I don't think 14 years, or any other prison sentence is appropriate. I am not in favour of criminalising such women (although criminalising abortionists who facilitate them would seen eminently reasonable). I think that the human rights of the unborn child to be protected is important and should be enshrined in law. Criminalising and prosecuting women for having an abortion is not, in my opinion, the best way to protect those unborn children.

So what should happen when girls and women want abortions and then have abortions? No sanctions whatsoever?

What is the best way to protect unborn children?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Now this is a pretty awful example. Does the teacher face a 14 year sentence if she fails to pull a child to safety?

The point, as you well know, is that a person in a position of responsibility may well be expected to maintain the life of another person. The penalty, if a penalty is imposed, is not equal in every case.

I don't for an instant believe that you are so unintelligent as to believe that such a principle necessitates that every responsible person who fails to maintain the life of someone under their care should be subjected to the precise same penalty irrespective of the circumstances. That leads me to believe that rather than engage in genuine discussion you are just playing games.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

The point, as you well know, is that a person in a position of responsibility may well be expected to maintain the life of another person. The penalty, if a penalty is imposed, is not equal in every case.

I don't for an instant believe that you are so unintelligent as to believe that such a principle necessitates that every responsible person who fails to maintain the life of someone under their care should be subjected to the precise same penalty irrespective of the circumstances. That leads me to believe that rather than engage in genuine discussion you are just playing games.

Nope, wrong again Nick.

Abortion isn't a game for me, given that I live in a country that equates my life to the zygote inside me and where if I'm pregnant again I may be waiting for my life to be at enough of a risk to get an abortion or I may have my children visiting me as a rotting corpse which has to be kept artificially alive because I'm pregnant.

These aren't situations you need to worry about, but I do. This is not a game for me, this is the reality.


ETA-could you tell me why abortionists should face sanctions but not the women asking for abortions? What if the women is the abortionist herself?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

So what should happen when girls and women want abortions and then have abortions? No sanctions whatsoever?

What is the best way to protect unborn children?

First off you guarantee their right to life in the Constitution, if that is not already in a particular nation's Constitution then you can assert an amendment granting them equality of right to life. (Be warned that if you do this that people might come along 30 years later and object that you've no right to use the term 'equality').

Then you seek to remove the primary causes of unborn children having their human right to life removed. This would include better ante-natal care, more support for parents whose children are disabled, appropriate psychiatric care for the suicidal, better financial structures to remove children from poverty, better care for rape victims etc.

Basically, you work to create a more just, equitable and compassionate society.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Nope, wrong again Nick.

Abortion isn't a game for me,

Sigh, I never said abortion was a game for you.

I said that you are playing games in this discussion. You are doing it because you don't listen to viewpoints other than your own, and are more interested in petty point-scoring than in a nuanced discussion about how the rights and desires of different sides can be balanced.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

No, it's a pretty awful point.

There is a difference between maintaining human life and acting to destroy human life. Anyone can see that.

For example, I am not obligated by law to provide a kidney for someone who needs a transplant. However, I am forbidden by law to sneak into their hospital ward and turn off their dialysis machine.

What if its my dialysis machine, I never gave them permission to use, and I can't afford to maintain it? What if the person who is using the machine is going to die of renal failure in the near future regardless what I do?

This is a reasonable analogy for the pregnant woman who neither wishes to have a baby nor go through a pregnancy. She is after all a person, not a state funded life support system to be used and abused where the need arises. She has rights that in my humble opinion far exceed a foetus who is yet to become a person and may never do so.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

First off you guarantee their right to life in the Constitution, if that is not already in a particular nation's Constitution then you can assert an amendment granting them equality of right to life. (Be warned that if you do this that people might come along 30 years later and object that you've no right to use the term 'equality').

Then you seek to remove the primary causes of unborn children having their human right to life removed. This would include better ante-natal care, more support for parents whose children are disabled, appropriate psychiatric care for the suicidal, better financial structures to remove children from poverty, better care for rape victims etc.

Basically, you work to create a more just, equitable and compassionate society.

Even with all the support in the world I'd want an abortion in certain situations. How will your plan deal with women like me?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Sigh, I never said abortion was a game for you.

I said that you are playing games in this discussion. You are doing it because you don't listen to viewpoints other than your own, and are more interested in petty point-scoring than in a nuanced discussion about how the rights and desires of different sides can be balanced.

OK, tell me how you'd balance the rights of a zygote inside me with my rights, if I want to have an abortion.

smacl

lazygal wrote: »

Even with all the support in the world I'd want an abortion in certain situations. How will your plan deal with women like me?

Not sure about Nick, but what I've seen to date the approach is turn a blind eye, point you to the boat, pretend it never happened, and hope to feck you don't raise it in polite company. It really does beggar belief the double standards and make-believe that so-called moral majority adhere to in this country.

lazygal

smacl wrote: »

Not sure about Nick, but what I've seen to date the approach is turn a blind eye, point you to the boat, pretend it never happened, and hope to feck you don't raise it in polite company. It really does beggar belief the double standards and make-believe that so-called moral majority adhere to in this country.

Yeah, all the "options" usually involve...staying pregnant. Or trying to talk you around for as long as it takes until it's too late to have an abortion, possible detention in psychiatric facilities or plain old ignoring your wishes entirely because of some claim to #lovethemboth.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

No, the people, quite correctly, voted to allow women to exercise their human right to travel (as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). We can hardly restrict that right based on what we think someone might do once they travel.

Well, that depends. Gail O Rorke has been mentioned more than once here, her right to travel was restricted based on what she planned to do : the travel agent reported her to the police who brought her to court.

And secondly, even if we can't stop women from travelling beforehand, what is stopping us from arresting the ones who later turn out to have had an abortion while abroad? Would someone who takes their Irish child out of the country for FGM really face no questioning of any sort if this later because known?

volchitsa

smacl wrote: »

Not sure about Nick, but what I've seen to date the approach is turn a blind eye, point you to the boat, pretend it never happened, and hope to feck you don't raise it in polite company. It really does beggar belief the double standards and make-believe that so-called moral majority adhere to in this country.

Oh well to be fair (if that's the word :mad:) there was an attempt to sedate and forcibly hydrate a barely 18 year old pregnant victim of rape. Now that's what I call energetic measures to protect the life of the unborn.

I wonder if any of our pro-life friends on here would be honest enough to tell us whether they'd like to see similar measures applied to their own daughters, or if that sort of thing is grand only as long as it's "just" an asylum seeker?

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh well to be fair (if that's the word :mad:) there was an attempt to sedate and forcibly hydrate a barely 18 year old pregnant victim of rape. Now that's what I call energetic measures to protect the life of the unborn.

I wonder if any of our pro-life friends on here would be honest enough to tell us whether they'd like to see similar measures applied to their own daughters, or if that sort of thing is grand only as long as it's "just" an asylum seeker?

The forcible detention of the 14 year old pregnant rape victim in the X case was considered by the judges involved. I wonder if Nick supports such measures in his plan to outlaw abortion. Detaining rape victims to save the unborn, possibly in cases where the rapist may not be jailed.