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
-
-
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.
Don't you love it when someone asks a question and then, without waiting for an answer, uses the word 'presumably' to mischaracterise another's position.
Perhaps I should report it to a mod?
One problem with your analogy is that you are quite incorrect in saying that the only difference is the connection being external rather than in utero. There are two further differences.
Difference number two is that no-one's life was in danger prior to a pregnancy. In Mr P's imaginative hypothesis, you agreed too be hooked up to the person specifically to save their life. But a truer analogy would be that you allowed yourself to be hooked up to them for quite another reason. They did not need their life to be saved, but by agreeing to the procedure (albeit while slightly drunk) you find yourself in a situation where a death, which otherwise would not have occurred, can now occur through your actions in disconnecting yourself from them.
Difference number three is regarding the relationship between yourself and the other person. In Mr P's thought experiment the other person may be a total stranger. In the case of pregnancy, the other person is your own child to whom you have a duty of care.
So a truer version of the analogy would go 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 Your daughter is 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. As a result of you engaging in a process by which your daughter was hooked up to you, she will die if you now unhook yourself. 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 caused your daughter to be hooked up to you without her consent and you will remain hooked up to them for 9 months. If you disconnect they your daughter will die. What would you do? Is it right for you to be forced to remain in this condition?
0 -
-
-
Maybe it was badly phrased, but it certainly was not intended to be a comment on lazybones position. LB hasn't made their position known, and I'll leave it to them to offer it up if they so choose.Don't you love it when someone asks a question and then, without waiting for an answer, uses the word 'presumably' to mischaracterise another's position.
Perhaps I should report it to a mod?
I meant it more as a musing along the lines if I was pro-life, then I'd probably be in favour of the person being hooked up to the machine.
Once the woman is pregnant, the foetus relies on the connection to the woman (personA in thought experiment) for survival. Much like the second person (personB) in the thought experiment.One problem with your analogy is that you are quite incorrect in saying that the only difference is the connection being external rather than in utero. There are two further differences.
Difference number one is that no-one's life was in danger prior to a pregnancy. In Mr P's imaginative hypothesis, you agreed too be hooked up to the person specifically to save their life. But a truer analogy would be that you allowed yourself to be hooked up to them for quite another reason. They did not need their life to be saved, but by agreeing to the procedure (albeit while slightly drunk) you find yourself in a situation where a death, which otherwise would not have occurred, can now occur through your actions in disconnecting yourself from them.
If the woman/personA break the link, then the foetus/personB will not survive.
My position wouldn't change, be it daughter/son/uncle/aunt/sibling etc. or stranger. It's wrong to legally compel someone to remain connected for the 9 months.Difference number two is regarding the relationship between yourself and the other person. In Mr P's thought experiment the other person may be a total stranger. In the case of pregnancy, the other person is your own child to whom you have a duty of care.
So a truer version of the analogy would go 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 Your daughter is 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. As a result of you engaging in a process by which your daughter was hooked up to you, she will die if you now unhook yourself. 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 your daughter will die. What would you do? Is it right for you to be forced to remain in this condition?
That's not to say I wouldn't choose of my own volition to remain connected.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Advertisement
-
Hold the phone... If a right is qualified, and the state subsequently restricts that right, as allowed by the qualification, then it isn't technically a breach of human rights. It goes something like this: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).
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.
You have a right to do something, it is your human right, but in certain circumstances, you do not have that right. So, if those circumstances apply, then you don't actually have that human right, therefore the state restricting you from exercising that right that you don't actually have isn't a breach fo the right that you didn't have. I hope that explains it.
I don't know if she has, and whilst I would hope that she would be successful in her case, as it is a qualified right, and the state believes, presumably, it was correct and justified in its action, it would not be a foregone conclusion.I hope she took her case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Well, as I said above, I don't think, necessarily, that a person's human right was actually breached. As appears to be fairly clear, when a state believes it is in societies interest qualified rights can be curtailed. So yes, I do find it odd that the right to travel can be restricted for football hooligans and people accompanying a friend planning to kill themselves but women are allowed to travel to kill their unborn. Actually, another point i forgot to mention, paedophiles are also subject to travel bans. So the UK will stop a convicted paedophile from travelling to rape children but the Irish are happy for woman to travel to kill/murder the unborn.So you find it really odd that governments breach human rights, but that a pro-lifer should support someone's human right to travel?
Can you honestly say you don't think that is a little odd?
Not necessarily, but I would have thought that if one is against the killing of the unborn then one should be against the killing of the unborn wherever it happened. I would also expect them to be a little irritated when they can see people's right to travel being restricted for what I have to assume thye would consider to be lesser "crimes". Or do you think football hooliganism, accompanying a friend on a trip where that friend will commit suicide or raping children are more serous crimes than killing an unborn child.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?
That is handy. Simply move jurisdictions and the crime is not longer a crime. Even that does work though... Again I will use the UK as an example, clearly it is not the same jurisdiction, but much of Irish law is based on English law, both still have common law systems and both are bound by the same convention on human rights. I see no reason why, if there was a will (remember these words, "if there was a will") why Ireland could not have laws that covered Irish citizens in another jurisdiction. The UK can prosecute men for having sex with children in countries where having sex with children is legal. Also, the Bribery Act 2010 covers British Citizens and employees of UK companies. This allows for the prosecution of individuals and companies, in UK courts for acts committed in other countries. This includes acts that would be legal in those other countries, yes, there are some countries that have made bribery legal!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?
So, in summary, as the right to travel is a qualified right it is possible to restrict it, though the state imposing the restriction would have to justify the restriction, it needs to be a necessary and proportionate means to pursue a legitimate aim. The legitimate aims are the interests of national security or public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Are you still going to tell me there are no grounds to restrict a woman from travelling to kill her unborn child? If I believed what you did I see plenty of justification restricting the rights to travel of women travelling to kill their unborn child. Prevention of crime? Abortion is a crime in Ireland. Protection of health or moral? Do you not think it is immoral to kill thae unborn? The protection of the rights and freedoms of others? Do you not think the unborn has rights?
MrP0 -
Hold the phone... If a right is qualified, and the state subsequently restricts that right, as allowed by the qualification, then it isn't technically a breach of human rights. It goes something like this:
You have a right to do something, it is your human right, but in certain circumstances, you do not have that right. So, if those circumstances apply, then you don't actually have that human right, therefore the state restricting you from exercising that right that you don't actually have isn't a breach fo the right that you didn't have. I hope that explains it.
No, it doesn't explain it very well. In the case of an incarcerated criminal, for example, their human right to travel outside of the country is qualified by the fact that they are in prison and therefore not free to travel anywhere in the country either.
That is a very different kettle of fish from refusing someone the right to travel because you don't like what they might do when they travel.Well, as I said above, I don't think, necessarily, that a person's human right was actually breached. As appears to be fairly clear, when a state believes it is in societies interest qualified rights can be curtailed. So yes, I do find it odd that the right to travel can be restricted for football hooligans and people accompanying a friend planning to kill themselves but women are allowed to travel to kill their unborn. Actually, another point i forgot to mention, paedophiles are also subject to travel bans. So the UK will stop a convicted paedophile from travelling to rape children but the Irish are happy for woman to travel to kill/murder the unborn.
Can you honestly say you don't think that is a little odd?
Do I find it a little odd that governments sometimes adopt policies that are different to the policies of governments in other countries?
No, I don't find it odd at all. Governments frequently do things that are odd, or different from one another.Not necessarily, but I would have thought that if one is against the killing of the unborn then one should be against the killing of the unborn wherever it happened. I would also expect them to be a little irritated when they can see people's right to travel being restricted for what I have to assume thye would consider to be lesser "crimes". Or do you think football hooliganism, accompanying a friend on a trip where that friend will commit suicide or raping children are more serous crimes than killing an unborn child.
I am against football hooliganism, raping children, or aborting a child wherever it occurs. It's getting rather tiresome to point out that I don't believe restricting one's human right to travel is therefore justified. You don't protect human rights, or indeed society, by interfering with human rights.
As for travelling with a friend. I don't see anything wrong with that, even if the friend is intending to commit suicide.The UK can prosecute men for having sex with children in countries where having sex with children is legal. Also, the Bribery Act 2010 covers British Citizens and employees of UK companies. This allows for the prosecution of individuals and companies, in UK courts for acts committed in other countries. This includes acts that would be legal in those other countries, yes, there are some countries that have made bribery legal!
You do have quite an obsession with UK law for someone who is posting on boards.ie
I would not normally use the word 'murder' for forms of killing that are deemed legal in the jurisdiction and context where they occur.
For example, if you decided to travel to Oklahoma to get a job as an executioner, then I would not describe your activities as 'murder' nor would I try to interfere with your right to travel. I am vehemently opposed to capital punishment wherever it occurs, I consider it a brutal human rights violation, but it is not murder. The same holds true if you want to go to Syria and kill people in a war.
Look, you seem to be expending a lot of effort in asserting that my human rights position on abortion is inconsistent with some aspects of the law in a foreign country (the UK). So what? My position is entirely consistent with a secular and civilised approach to how human rights should be protected under Irish law.If I believed what you did I see plenty of justification restricting the rights to travel of women travelling to kill their unborn child. Prevention of crime? Abortion is a crime in Ireland. Protection of health or moral? Do you not think it is immoral to kill thae unborn? The protection of the rights and freedoms of others? Do you not think the unborn has rights?
No, because if you really believed what I believe then you wouldn't see the law as a tool to enforce your morality on others. You would be passionate about ensuring that the human rights of all are respected, not just the human rights that happen to suit you.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
No, it's not the same situation: the man on the trolley already was alive before the other person was procured to sustain his life. A baby isn't a foreign body that develops outside and enters in. Why this 'literary device' and phoney scenario?Which is the same situation as the thought experiment... I don't understand your problem with this. I'll find out later, hopefully.
[/QUOTE] Why so strict that the conversation must acknowledge and go by your wording and definitions? As if by using the word 'child' we wouldn't know we were discussing human offspring... 0 -
So you're unwilling to discuss what is essentially the crux of the whole abortion debate?
I'm all for discussing the abortion debate but why is it necessary to introduce such a ridiculous premise to be able to discuss it? Are you unable to formulate and present your thoughts and objections without referring to an imaginary man; imaginary doctor and imaginary scenario to deliver the points? It's an unnecessary complication and everyone's insistence on it all of a sudden is as baffling.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
I don't think it actually does. If you have a right, there are no circumstances (in that particular jurisdiction) where you don't have that right; the right is limited (or qualified) in the first place, and does not extend beyond it's stated extent, ever. Someone might imagine they should be able to avail of a particular right in a given circumstance, but that does not mean that right actually extends to that circumstance, even though the person still has the same right they had all along.Hold the phone... If a right is qualified, and the state subsequently restricts that right, as allowed by the qualification, then it isn't technically a breach of human rights. It goes something like this: You have a right to do something, it is your human right, but in certain circumstances, you do not have that right. So, if those circumstances apply, then you don't actually have that human right, therefore the state restricting you from exercising that right that you don't actually have isn't a breach fo the right that you didn't have. I hope that explains it.
She hasn't. Since she wasn't prevented from travelling, but chose not to, it's likely she never even considered trying to take such a caseI don't know if she has, and whilst I would hope that she would be successful in her case, as it is a qualified right, and the state believes, presumably, it was correct and justified in its action, it would not be a foregone conclusion.
Not so odd when you realise it's not actually the case though; it actually makes perfect sense when you consider the facts rather than the stuff people just make up to support their position.Well, as I said above, I don't think, necessarily, that a person's human right was actually breached. As appears to be fairly clear, when a state believes it is in societies interest qualified rights can be curtailed. So yes, I do find it odd that the right to travel can be restricted for football hooligans and people accompanying a friend planning to kill themselves but women are allowed to travel to kill their unborn.
You think it's odd that someone who has been convicted of a crime may have their travel legally restricted, but someone who has not been convicted of a crime may not? I have to say I'd consider it odd if it were the other way around....Actually, another point i forgot to mention, paedophiles are also subject to travel bans. So the UK will stop a convicted paedophile from travelling to rape children but the Irish are happy for woman to travel to kill/murder the unborn. Can you honestly say you don't think that is a little odd?
I'd say wanting to commit football hooliganism, wanting to accompany a friend on a trip where that friend will commit suicide, wanting to rape children and wanting to kill an unborn child are all not crimes. Whereas actually doing these things, depending on the jurisdiction, is a crime, engaging in which could result in someone's facility to travel being restricted.Not necessarily, but I would have thought that if one is against the killing of the unborn then one should be against the killing of the unborn wherever it happened. I would also expect them to be a little irritated when they can see people's right to travel being restricted for what I have to assume thye would consider to be lesser "crimes". Or do you think football hooliganism, accompanying a friend on a trip where that friend will commit suicide or raping children are more serous crimes than killing an unborn child.
That's not true though; it's not a crime in the other jurisdiction. It's still a crime in the jurisdiction where it is a crime.That is handy. Simply move jurisdictions and the crime is not longer a crime.
Nobody is saying Ireland couldn't have such a law; just that none of those (oddly, pro-choice proponents entirely) proposing such a law, have demonstrated they have any idea how to make such a law actually practicable. All of the examples of how they think it could work (generally from the UK, as both yourself and proponents such as lazygal and volchitsa will attest) turn out to be examples of legislation which is supported by international cooperation (which would be limited to the point of uselessness in the case of abortion legislation) and yet still achieve next to no convictions and no evidence of causing a measurable reduction in the incidence of the crime. That may be an indication of why many of those who oppose abortion see no value in seeking to extend our jurisdiction beyond our borders. As I've said before, if someone can come up with a practicable solution I'd certainly support it. But I very much doubt those who simply use the concept as a stalking horse are likely to come up with one.Even that does work though... Again I will use the UK as an example, clearly it is not the same jurisdiction, but much of Irish law is based on English law, both still have common law systems and both are bound by the same convention on human rights. I see no reason why, if there was a will (remember these words, "if there was a will") why Ireland could not have laws that covered Irish citizens in another jurisdiction.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement