Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)
Options
Comments
-
What do you consider is the significant difference between that and before the measurable brainwaves at six weeks?
I don't see an essential difference; one is further along the path of development is all. Seeing as only oxygen and nutrients are added after conception, it seems hard to distinguish a point at which it becomes human, rather than continually develops as one.
It could be called significant to show those who consider a foetus a clump of cells only - akin to any other tissue in the body - because for brain waves to be present requires a brain. I'd be happy with small steps with certain people: if we can even get them to recognise that it is a human being we are talking about, rather than if it were the same as the dead skin on our toes, that would be a positive first step.0 -
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.
While I disagree that the unborn should be assigned the human right to life, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning for doing so. (Apologies if you've already stated this earlier in the thread, I may have missed it.)
As for the steps you would take to remove the need for abortion, I would completely agree with all the steps you outlined (apart from the human rights bit) but these would only be measures to reduce abortion rates, it would not stop them. Even with all of these measures in place within a just, equitable and compassionate society, there will always be women who have found themselves pregnant that don't want to be.
In these situations you are left with 2 options, provide compassionate abortion care for the woman or don't, and let her cause potentially irreparable harm to herself.0 -
You might say that, but to be fair; it wouldn't be true. A baby being conceived may be likely, even probable, but that wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying that once a blastocyst embeds it's development into what you consider a person is inevitable, barring accidents and interference. There's no comparison between that and someones decision to have a child (or a rape, as has been the argument of late) and that decision (or not) becoming a specific blastocyst implanted in it's mother.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.
Which is why I specifically called out barring accidents or interference; elective abortion is most assuredly the latter, regardless of the rather unfounded '(most?)' you inserted.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.
Arguably, not neccasary at all; simply desirable to some.Thankfully this is increasingly less necessary with the likes of the morning after pill and better education regarding contraception, but it is still there.
That would be a rather crude reconstruction of the facts though, which I think you know. We're not actually thinking in terms of which abortions are being prevented at all; as has been pointed out the purpose is to save peoples lives, and we know that the current legislation prevents the taking of unborn lives except where they threaten that of the mother. That there are people with the means to avoid the law (just as with other laws) by going overseas doesn't mean we discriminate at all; our society makes an effort to protect the lives of the weakest in it that others do not. If others followed our example, it would be more difficult for those who wish to evade the law to do so.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.0 -
Why would it be, if it's agreed that there are already inequalities between all four people?Is having an abortion equal to killing a 17 week old baby, 35 year old woman or pensioner?
A person who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child faces a penalty of up to fourteen years in prison, approximately what a person who commits manslaughter will serve. What's the point of asking that question when you know the answer?What penalties should girls and women who have abortions face? Murder or manslaughter charges? Or no criminal sanctions whatsoever? Or different charges entirely?
It means no one can intentionally kill an unborn person without facing charges; their life is as protected by the State as the life of their mother. Seriously... you know this too.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?
Liverpool isn't in the Republic, is it? And you know our laws have no jurisdiction in another country....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.
Yep.. like most countries we don't detain people on the basis of what they intend to do. Conspire to do, or even attempt to do, maybe... but not intend.Really? Even when they're travelling to kill the unborn?
No.. it wasn't. It really, really wasn't. You know it wasn't, but you keep repeating the same nonsense.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.
That was when she was told she was going to be given a c section to rid her of the pregnancy, but she went on hunger strike because she wanted the child killed instead, wasn't it? Personally, I'd see those measures applied to anyone who insisted on killing someone rather than saving their life, yes.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.
If it helps at all, I personally support the idea of detaining anyone who has been found to be conspiring or attempting to kill a person, whether born or unborn... and I should point out that abortion, except in very limited circumstances, is already outlawed.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.0 -
The universal declaration of human rights guarantees no such thing. It is a qualified right, and as such cannot be guaranteed.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).
This is already done. I previously gave the example, in the UK context of football supporters receiving travel bans in the UK. They are prevented from travelling on the grounds of what they would do if they travelled.We can hardly restrict that right based on what we think someone might do once they travel.
In Ireland, just a handful of years ago, a person was stopped from travelling to Switzerland to help her friend with an assisted suicide.
I find it really odd that the UK, also signed up to the universal declaration of human rights, as expressed through the Human Rights Act 1998 are able to prevent football fans from travelling because they might cause a bit of trouble, and that the Irish authorities can prevent someone from travelling with a friend to help them avail themselves of an assisted suicide service, yet many that consider an abortion to be the murder of an innocent child have no problem with women travelling for that.
It is clearly the case that, even where a country incorporates the universal declaration of human rights into it laws, it can and does, still, restrict the rights of its citizens to travel, under certain circumstances. So we have three acts here: 1) football hooliganism. Illegal in the country it would, maybe, be perpetrated in. 2) accompanying a person seeking assisted suicide. The assisted suicide would be legal in the country that it would be performed, but regardless, the person prevented from travelling was a mere travel companion and would not actually have any role in the assisted suicide, and 3) the murder/intentional killing of an unborn child. Let me clarify, I personally don't consider an abortion to be murder, murder is a legal term and an abortion simply does not satisfy the requires for that label, but there are plenty of people that do consider abortion to be murder. Now, if we arrange these three things in order of seriousness what do we get? I would have football hooliganism as most serious. The reason being, the other two shouldn't even be on the list. Now, if I was an anti-choice (sorry, I can't bring myself to use the term pro-life) inclined person, I would consider the murder of an unborn child to be the most important, and I would like to think I would be trying to stop people from murdering them, including travelling to murder them elsewhere.
So why are people that believe abortion is murder trying to stop all these unborn children being murdered? We can stop football hooligans and travel companions, but we can't stop child murderers, or even try to stop them?
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
Julian Baggini had an interesting thought experiment in one of his books, I can't remember which. I have posted it before, but as far as I recall none of the anti-choice posters would give actually engage with the thought experiment. it goes something like this:
You have had a bit of a celebration, and are a little bit drunk and heading home. You wake up the next mornign and find yourself in a white room, on a bed. There is lots of medical equipment around you and there are various tubes and pipe inserted into various parts of your body. These tubes and pipe all go to a machine. On the other side of the machine is another bed. There is someone in that bed, and they are hooked up to the machine similarly to you.
A doctor comes over to you and explains what happened. The person in the other bed has a disease which means they will die without certain bodily functions being taken care of. At this moment those bodily functions are being carried out by you. Last night, admittedly when you were a little drunk, you agreed to be hooked up to the machine to save this person's life and you will remain hooked up to them for 9 months. If you disconnect they will die. What would you do? Is it right for you to be forced to remain in this condition.
I probably have not done it justice, it has been a few years since I read it, but you get the idea.
MrP0 -
Julian Baggini had an interesting thought experiment in one of his books, I can't remember which. I have posted it before, but as far as I recall none of the anti-choice posters would give actually engage with the thought experiment. it goes something like this:
You have had a bit of a celebration, and are a little bit drunk and heading home. You wake up the next mornign and find yourself in a white room, on a bed. There is lots of medical equipment around you and there are various tubes and pipe inserted into various parts of your body. These tubes and pipe all go to a machine. On the other side of the machine is another bed. There is someone in that bed, and they are hooked up to the machine similarly to you.
A doctor comes over to you and explains what happened. The person in the other bed has a disease which means they will die without certain bodily functions being taken care of. At this moment those bodily functions are being carried out by you. Last night, admittedly when you were a little drunk, you agreed to be hooked up to the machine to save this person's life and you will remain hooked up to them for 9 months. If you disconnect they will die. What would you do? Is it right for you to be forced to remain in this condition.
I probably have not done it justice, it has been a few years since I read it, but you get the idea.
MrP
Go to Temple St. Children's Hospital and put that 'thought exercise' to the parents whose child is hooked up and will likely die; I'm sure many would love to be able to do it to save their child.0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »Go to Temple St. Children's Hospital and put that 'thought exercise' to the parents whose child is hooked up and will likely die; I'm sure many would love to be able to do it to save their child.
And this, folks, is the typical expected response. I have four kids, one of whom spent some time in Temple Street, and there is very little I wouldn't do for any of them, but so what? What does what a parent would do to save his her her child have to do with the thought experiment. I appreciate if you didn't have appeals you emotion you wouldn't really have anything but your answer, but seriously, can you not just answer the question.
MrP0 -
There are very few rights that aren't, or can't be, qualified though. Most pertinently, the right to life is a qualified one, the right to bodily integrity even more so. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't actually guarantee any rights; it's simply sets out the aspirations of the signatories to provide those rights.The universal declaration of human rights guarantees no such thing. It is a qualified right, and as such cannot be guaranteed.
So... already done in a country that doesn't have our Constitution or laws? The country in which 'we' stop stop football fans from leaving the country because they might fight was conspicuously absent from the example you gave at the time, as conspicuously absent as the fact the people can't be simply stopped from leaving even that country because they might fight; the process requires that police 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. So... no, they're not actually prevented from travelling on the grounds of what they would do if they travelled, are they? The grounds are far more substantial.This is already done. I previously gave the example, in the UK context of football supporters receiving travel bans in the UK. They are prevented from travelling on the grounds of what they would do if they travelled.
No, she wasn't. One newspaper and constant repetition doesn't a fact make; she remained free to travel to Switzerland, and chose not to.In Ireland, just a handful of years ago, a person was stopped from travelling to Switzerland to help her friend with an assisted suicide.
Though if you consider the facts, rather than the rather more ambiguous glossing over of stuff, it maybe doesn't seem that odd at all?I find it really odd that the UK, also signed up to the universal declaration of human rights, as expressed through the Human Rights Act 1998 are able to prevent football fans from travelling because they might cause a bit of trouble, and that the Irish authorities can prevent someone from travelling with a friend to help them avail themselves of an assisted suicide service, yet many that consider an abortion to be the murder of an innocent child have no problem with women travelling for that.
It's amazing how much effort you go into to create a backstory for why people should be doing what you think, rather than what they think. Is it so difficult to discuss the pro life positions that people actually hold that you need to make up positions you believe they should hold simply to belabour them? And then to ignore the facts of your own hooliganism and Switzerland examples to try and bolster the case against a fictional position... you have to admit it does suggest some insecurity in your own perception of your position.<...>So why are people that believe abortion is murder trying to stop all these unborn children being murdered? We can stop football hooligans and travel companions, but we can't stop child murderers, or even try to stop them?0 -
I'm going to suggest off the bat that your problem there might be that there are no anti-choice posters, so that's why they didn't engage with it. There's certainly no one who I've seen identify themselves as an anti-choice poster, and if you're going to tell someone what they are, as well as what their argument should be, you might have an inkling why they don't then engage with your experiments; it's obviously a pointless exercise.Julian Baggini had an interesting thought experiment in one of his books, I can't remember which. I have posted it before, but as far as I recall none of the anti-choice posters would give actually engage with the thought experiment.
Still... when you posted it three years ago, a pro life poster argued that the scenario wasn't comparable to pregnancy, an argument which you did not refute. When you posted it nearly two years ago, a pro life made a similar assertion, which, again, you didn't contend.
So whilst your mythical anti-choice posters may not have engaged with it, it seems the pro life ones did, but you abandoned it. Twice.
For what it's worth, as a pro life (not anti-choice) poster, I'd add that, obviously, the thought experiment is not analogous with pregnancy, so has little value with regard to a discussion of abortion, but it does present interesting questions. For me, the main question would be if a person woke to find themselves in those circumstances and were able to extricate themselves from the life support systems (knowing the consequences of their actions) without killing themselves, but thereby causing the death of the other person, would they have any legal or moral liability for that death. My opinion is yes, to at least some degree they would; shared with whoever placed them in that position for sure, but ultimately the decision to cause the death of the other person is theirs, and they are responsible for that decision.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah now... of the three (four now) responses you've had so far, it's a minority response; if you typically expect it you're going to be wrong 75% of the time, going on your own past record.And this, folks, is the typical expected response. I have four kids, one of whom spent some time in Temple Street, and there is very little I wouldn't do for any of them, but so what? What does what a parent would do to save his her her child have to do with the thought experiment. I appreciate if you didn't have appeals you emotion you wouldn't really have anything but your answer, but seriously, can you not just answer the question.
Sounds a bit like your idea of banning travel for abortion; what you expect people to say is obviously not what they're saying, so why do you expect it?0 -
And this, folks, is the typical expected response. I have four kids, one of whom spent some time in Temple Street, and there is very little I wouldn't do for any of them, but so what? What does what a parent would do to save his her her child have to do with the thought experiment. I appreciate if you didn't have appeals you emotion you wouldn't really have anything but your answer, but seriously, can you not just answer the question.
MrP
Oh but it did appeal to my emotions! I've started an online group to lobby for drunken people not being abducted for nine months by doctors after reading this (I'm still crying and my heart is bleeding) But I have been very successful so far: how many people have suffered such inhumanity because of my glorious efforts? 0!
"What does what a parent would do to save his her her child have to do with the thought experiment?" - lol. What then has the scenario got to do with abortion? Should I report your post for deliberately taking the thread off-topic? The point of the abortion thread is about what a parent/s won't do to save their child, not some stranger who climbed into her womb.0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »"What does what a parent would do to save his her her child have to do with the thought experiment?" - lol. What then has the scenario got to do with abortion?
The abducted person is the pregnant woman, the other person is the unborn. Simples.lazybones32 wrote: »Should I report your post for deliberately taking the thread off-topic? The point of the abortion thread is about what a parent/s won't do to save their child, not some stranger who climbed into her womb.
The point of the abortion thread is to discuss the moral and societal implications of abortion being legal under various circumstances. There is no discussion about saving children until we agree on what what a child is, and many do not count the unborn as being children. So no, it's not about saving children until you can prove that the unborn are children.0 -
Still... when you posted it three years ago, a pro life poster argued that the scenario wasn't comparable to pregnancy, an argument which you did not refute. When you posted it nearly two years ago, a pro life made a similar assertion, which, again, you didn't contend.
Well done!0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »Oh but it did appeal to my emotions! I've started an online group to lobby for drunken people not being abducted for nine months by doctors after reading this (I'm still crying and my heart is bleeding) But I have been very successful so far: how many people have suffered such inhumanity because of my glorious efforts? 0!
"What does what a parent would do to save his her her child have to do with the thought experiment?" - lol. What then has the scenario got to do with abortion? Should I report your post for deliberately taking the thread off-topic? The point of the abortion thread is about what a parent/s won't do to save their child, not some stranger who climbed into her womb.
The point of thought experiment is to ask the question as to whether a person has the right (or indeed should they) detact themselves from another person who is relying on them to live and requires to be attached for 9 months.
This is quite relevant to the disussion on abortion. The only difference is the connection is external rather than in utero.
From a pro-life perspective, the answer would presumably be the person should be legally required to endure the 9 months regardless of consent from the person who is now the life support system for the sick person.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Can you let the man speak for himself? He tried claiming it wasn't related, so it's not your place to say it is.The abducted person is the pregnant woman, the other person is the unborn. Simples.
And many do count the unborn as being developing children. Do you accept that it is an unborn human?The point of the abortion thread is to discuss the moral and societal implications of abortion being legal under various circumstances. There is no discussion about saving children until we agree on what what a child is, and many do not count the unborn as being children. So no, it's not about saving children until you can prove that the unborn are children.
You can try and tangle this up with getting others to try and prove what a child is/isn't but if you are going down the route of legal definitions, I'll leave you to it.0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »Can you let the man speak for himself? He tried claiming it wasn't related, so it's not your place to say it is.
He said that it had nothing to do with a parent doing what they can to save the life of a born child, which I agree with. There is no situation today where a parent can be hooked up directly to their child.
But there are situations where a pregnant woman becomes the life support system for the unborn, often by accident. The thought experiment relates to this situation.lazybones32 wrote: »And many do count the unborn as being developing children. Do you accept that it is an unborn human?
You can try and tangle this up with getting others to try and prove what a child is/isn't but if you are going down the route of legal definitions, I'll leave you to it.
A human, as separate from a person or child? Sure.0 -
I thought so too but was derided for offering MrP to go to a place where people would be willing to hook themselves up to a machine in order to save their child's life...The point of thought experiment is to ask the question as to whether a person has the right (or indeed should they) detact themselves from another person who is relying on them to live and requires to be attached for 9 months.
The difference between a pregnant woman (reality) and this scenario (imaginary) is that the woman's child is hers; being formed from her genetic material. If Mr-fixed-your-post-P were to alter the story and have the protagonist being used as a surrogate against their will, it would be more of a head scratcher.This is quite relevant to the disussion on abortion. The only difference is the connection is external rather than in utero.
Such a comprehensive grasp!:DFrom a pro-life perspective, the answer would presumably be the person should be legally required to endure the 9 months regardless of consent from the person who is now the life support system for the sick person.0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »I thought so too but was derided for offering MrP to go to a place where people would be willing to hook themselves up to a machine in order to save their child's life...
The difference between a pregnant woman (reality) and this scenario (imaginary) is that the woman's child is hers; being formed from her genetic material. If Mr-fixed-your-post-P were to alter the story and have the protagonist being used as a surrogate against their will, it would be more of a head scratcher.
Such a comprehensive grasp!:D
The thought experiment is to examine what are the responsibilities of the person providing life support to another being.
The pro-life stance would say that the person should stay connected to the machine for 9 months. That it should be illegal to disconnect from the machine.
The pro-choice stance would allow for the person to volunteer the 9 months or disconnect themselves from the machine.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
And there are situations where grown adults get abducted by doctors and forced to perform the functions as outlined in the story? We keep jumping between reality and ridiculous, one being used to justify the other, that I get a bit confused at times.He said that it had nothing to do with a parent doing what they can to save the life of a born child, which I agree with. There is no situation today where a parent can be hooked up directly to their child.
In all situations a pregnant woman becomes a 'life support system'/mother for her unborn.But there are situations where a pregnant woman becomes the life support system for the unborn, often by accident. The thought experiment relates to this situation.
Seriously?A human, as separate from a person or child? Sure.0 -
Advertisement
-
lazybones32 wrote: »In all situations a pregnant woman becomes a 'life support system'/mother for her unborn.
Sure, so the thought experiment applies to all pregnancies. So lets continue.lazybones32 wrote: »Seriously?
Is there a problem with my answer?0 -
The thought experiment is to examine what are the responsibilities of the person providing life support to another being.
The pro-life stance would say that the person should stay connected to the machine for 9 months. That it should be illegal to disconnect from the machine.
The pro-choice stance would allow for the person to volunteer the 9 months or disconnect themselves from the machine.
I got the points but thank you anyway.
Would you disconnect yourself from the machine (even though you could still live a normal life despite being emotional, sore hips and having to go to the toilet more frequently while being on it) in order to save a family member of yours? There's little point in making the story about supporting some random stranger when the real story is about your own flesh and blood.0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »I got the points but thank you anyway.
Would you disconnect yourself from the machine (even though you could still live a normal life despite being emotional, sore hips and having to go to the toilet more frequently while being on it) in order to save a family member of yours? There's little point in making the story about supporting some random stranger when the real story is about your own flesh and blood.
But that's not the question asked in the thought experiment.
The question isn't 'what would you do for a family member', it's 'what are the responsibilities of a person to provide life support for another perso for 9 months'?
Are you willing to discuss the thought experiment?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Far from it!Sure, so the thought experiment applies to all pregnancies. So lets continue.
Let's abandon the thought experiment and go from a woman being the life support/provider of life. I'm leaving at 11 so it'll have to wait until later this eening.Is there a problem with my answer?
0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »Far from it!
Let's abandon the thought experiment and go from a woman being the life support/provider of life. I'm leaving at 11 so it'll have to wait until later this eening.
Which is the same situation as the thought experiment... I don't understand your problem with this. I'll find out later, hopefully.lazybones32 wrote: »
0 -
But that's not the question asked in the thought experiment.
The question isn't 'what would you do for a family member', it's 'what are the responsibilities of a person to provide life support for another perso for 9 months'?
Are you willing to discuss the thought experiment?
I've no interest in examining and discussing the responsibilities of a person to provide life support for another person for 9 months; not on an abortion thread at least.
I'm willing to discuss my responsibilities to supporting a child of mine for 9 months and beyond.0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »I've no interest in examining and discussing the responsibilities of a person to provide life support for another person for 9 months; not on an abortion thread at least.
I'm willing to discuss my responsibilities to supporting a child of mine for 9 months and beyond.
So you're unwilling to discuss what is essentially the crux of the whole abortion debate? If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »I've no interest in examining and discussing the responsibilities of a person to provide life support for another person for 9 months; not on an abortion thread at least.
I'm willing to discuss my responsibilities to supporting a child of mine for 9 months and beyond.
What are the responsibilities of pregnant women and girls in terms of the foetus inside them?0 -
Yes, the right to travel is qualified. For example, it is denied to convicts in prison (as are other rights listed in the Universal Declaration).The universal declaration of human rights guarantees no such thing. It is a qualified right, and as such cannot be guaranteed.
However, I do not see that a human right can be denied on the basis of what you think somebody might do if they are going to exercise that right.
So what? The UK has acted in a way that is a breach of people's human rights in order to satisfy a populist clamouring. That isn't by any means unusual.This is already done. I previously gave the example, in the UK context of football supporters receiving travel bans in the UK. They are prevented from travelling on the grounds of what they would do if they travelled.
I hope she took her case to the European Court of Human Rights.In Ireland, just a handful of years ago, a person was stopped from travelling to Switzerland to help her friend with an assisted suicide.
So you find it really odd that governments breach human rights, but that a pro-lifer should support someone's human right to travel?I find it really odd that the UK, also signed up to the universal declaration of human rights, as expressed through the Human Rights Act 1998 are able to prevent football fans from travelling because they might cause a bit of trouble, and that the Irish authorities can prevent someone from travelling with a friend to help them avail themselves of an assisted suicide service, yet many that consider an abortion to be the murder of an innocent child have no problem with women travelling for that.
Why is that odd? Do you think a pro-life person must always agree with every decision of their own, or indeed of foreign, governments?
Neither do I consider abortion to be 'murder' when it occurs in a jurisdiction where it is legal. So if you want me to respond to questions that are directed by you to me, maybe you should stop muddying the waters by using the term?Let me clarify, I personally don't consider an abortion to be murder, murder is a legal term and an abortion simply does not satisfy the requires for that label,0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement