Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I googled it, but the only reference I can find to it is, rather strangely, in a blog by the Dutch right wing politician Geert Wilders where he claimed he was at the centre of a case against Netherlands that some Moroccan chaps had taken to the Court. So perhaps Mr Wilders and smacl are the only people who know the handshake (always assuming, of course, that they are not the same person)?

UN Human Rights Committee. Jeez, you got some great mileage out of that typo. Is that really the level you're aiming for? Very Christian I'm sure.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

UN Human Rights Committee. Jeez, you got some great mileage out of that typo. Is that really the level you're aiming for? Very Christian I'm sure.

And there I was thinking you were the kind of poster who could hand out a bit of banter (such as cracks about the Spanish Inquisition) and could take a bit of banter.

Very po-faced I'm sure.

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

You might be, but lets face it the same people that lobbied hard to get the 8th included didn't want men or women to use contraception and if they had their way it would have remained that way.

This is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen advanced on this or any other forum..

The people who made rape illegal also practised slavery. So, by your logic, that makes the prohibition of rape a dodgy proposition.

Now, if you've quite finished scraping the bottom of the dodgy-logic barrel please wash your hands.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

From Amnesty International; IRELAND’S BAN ON ABORTION VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS – GROUND-BREAKING UN RULING

So, not the international treaties that define Human Rights? Not any court that international communities sign up to?

Just one of the UN's highly politicised committees which opine on all kinds of matters knowing fine well that their 'rulings' carry no weight or force whatsoever and are binding on nobody.

Sorry, but I don't see that a committee including appointees from such Human Rights champions as Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and Uganda should get to redefine Human Rights rather than the landmark treaties that the international community has signed up to.

And yet you seem happy enough to redefine human rights to suit a pro-life agenda in such a way that it is contrary to the position held by most other human rights activists? Given the last HSE study on crisis pregnancy shows that 89% of those surveyed state they are in favour of allowing the choice of abortion where the woman's health is at serious risk, what you call human rights I would call theocratic interference.

I'm redefining nothing. I'm going by the major treaties on Human Rights. These all guarantee the right to life. None of them state abortion as a Human Right.

Look, if abortion was really a Human Right, then it would be quite simple. You would quote me chapter and verse from the relevant treaty and I would shut up. But you can't. And I won't.

Pro Hoc Vice

smacl wrote: »

From Amnesty International; IRELAND’S BAN ON ABORTION VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS – GROUND-BREAKING UN RULING



And yet you seem happy enough to redefine human rights to suit a pro-life agenda in such a way that it is contrary to the position held by most other human rights activists? Given the last HSE study on crisis pregnancy shows that 89% of those surveyed state they are in favour of allowing the choice of abortion where the woman's health is at serious risk, what you call human rights I would call theocratic interference.

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/IRL/CCPR_C_116_D_2324_2013_24813_E.docx

If anyone has time the actual decision might put any claimed view in context.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm redefining nothing. I'm going by the major treaties on Human Rights. These all guarantee the right to life. None of them state abortion as a Human Right.

Look, if abortion was really a Human Right, then it would be quite simple. You would quote me chapter and verse from the relevant treaty and I would shut up. But you can't. And I won't.

International human rights treaties recognise the right to life after birth, they do not accord such rights to a gestating foetus. From an OCHR discussion on health access rights;

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) provides in Article 1, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The language of the treaty was specifically chosen to apply rights to persons once they are born. As the language of the treaty was being negotiated, an amendment was proposed to include the right to life before birth but the amendment was overwhelmingly rejected.

As noted above, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976) protects the right to life in Article 6. As with negotiations on the language of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, an amendment to protect life before birth was offered and rejected. The Committee overseeing the treaty has recognized the right to abortion and linked it with the right to life of a pregnant woman.

Perhaps you could point me to the relevant treaty that considers a freshly implanted foetus to have the same rights as a born person?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

International human rights treaties recognise the right to life after birth, they do not accord such rights to a gestating foetus. From an OCHR discussion on health access rights;



Perhaps you could point me to the relevant treaty that considers a freshly implanted foetus to have the same rights as a born person?

I'll take that as a 'No' then. You won't point to any clause in any major Human Rights Treaty that declares abortion to be a Human Right?

Meanwhile, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (the most ratified Human Rights Treaty in history), in its Preamble, states "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". In a legal ruling (that's a binding ruling by a judge - not an opinion by a committee) earlier this year, this was seen as imposing a Human Rights obligation on the Irish state.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I'll take that as a 'No' then. You won't point to any clause in any major Human Rights Treaty that declares abortion to be a Human Right?

Not a clause, but from the commentary on Convention on the Rights of the Child

Adolescent girls should have access to information on the harm that early marriage and early pregnancy can cause, and those who become pregnant should have access to health services that are sensitive to their rights and particular needs. States parties should take measures to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality in adolescent girls, particularly caused by early pregnancy and unsafe abortion practices, and to support adolescent parents. Young mothers, especially where support is lacking, may be prone to depression and anxiety, compromising their ability to care for their child. The Committee urges States parties (a) to develop and implement programmes that provide access to sexual and reproductive health services, including family planning, contraception and safe abortion services where abortion is not against the law, adequate and comprehensive obstetric care and counselling; (b) to foster positive and supportive attitudes towards adolescent parenthood for their mothers and fathers; and (c) to develop policies that will allow adolescent mothers to continue their education.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (the most ratified Human Rights Treaty in history), in its Preamble, states "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth"

So not a clause as such either then.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Not a clause, but from the commentary on Convention on the Rights of the Child

I'm wondering if you actually read your own link.

It doesn't for one moment say that abortion is a Human Right. It says that, in jurisdictions where abortion is legal, then young people should not be denied access to those abortion services.

No way in a million years that equates to defining abortion as a Human Right.

I think you're maybe confusing civil rights with Human Rights. https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31546

Basically, according to the commentary you've linked to, if abortion is permitted by a nation's laws then, for those living in that nation, abortion is their civil right. Therefore, if a young person is, in a country where abortion is legal, denied access to abortion services, then that is discriminatory and a denial of their civil rights.

But your commentary is careful to note that such a civil right only exists in countries where abortion is legal. In countries where abortion is illegal then no civil right to it exists.

Human Rights are different. Every human being is entitled to Human Rights, irrespective of whether they are legal or not in the country where you live. So, everyone has a Human Right not to be tortured, not to be raped, and a right to choose and practice your religion - even in countries whose laws don't grant such freedoms.

So, your commentary defines abortion as a civil right where abortion is legalised. It does not, in any shape or form, define abortion as a Human Right.

So not a clause as such either then.

I hope you're not going to try to equate a Commentary on a Treaty to the Preamble of a Treaty? That would be most unwise.

A Commentary has no legal standing, it is usually produced after the event. A Preamble (as an Irish court found earlier this year) is legally relevant and is produced at the same time (or even prior to) a treaty or Constitution.

A Preamble is an interpretative tool, and it can be used to help make judgements when there is ambiguity in a Constitution or Treaty. So, for example, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that, where their Constitution is ambiguous, then the Preamble comes into play to determine the original intent of the Constitution's framers.

It reasonable, then, as an Irish court appears to have done so, to use the Preamble to the UNCRC to address any ambiguity within the Convention as to whether it applies before birth.

So, once again I ask you. Can you please cite any major Human Rights Treaty that defines abortion as a Human Right?

Absolam

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/IRL/CCPR_C_116_D_2324_2013_24813_E.docxIf anyone has time the actual decision might put any claimed view in context.

I'd suggest the context would be the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and particularly the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which this particular Committee is charged with monitoring implementation of. As Nick Park has correctly pointed out, none of these offer a right to abortion, though both the Declaration and Convention afford a right to life. However, as has been discussed (and a quick review of Oldrnwisrs posts on the subject will provide a substantive gist) both are set out in such a fashion as to be acceptable to all member States; those who permit abortion and those who do not. The UN itself does not take a position on abortion because it's membership is divided on the issue. Whilst it's hardly surprising that a Committee composed of representatives of States who permit abortion will lean towards conclusions that include abortion as an option, it's worth noting that the substantive issues the Committee felt it was dealing with did not include a right to abortion. Their report states the substantive issues were "Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; right to privacy; right to obtain information; gender discrimination", and it was their conclusion that Ireland ought to permit abortion to ensure compliance with the Covenant.

As has been mentioned, abortion is not an expressly stated right in UN human rights treaties; there are those who feel it is an interpreted right, not an expressly stated right in UN human rights treaties but generally an extension or extrapolation of a right to privacy or wellbeing. Hence the fact that Ireland, as a signatory to those treaties, is not obligated to expand the availability of abortion any further than our own Constitution allows, despite the concerns and recommendations of UN committees.

oldrnwisr

Nick Park wrote: »

Really?

Could you please quote which major Human Rights treaty states abortion to be a Human Right?

Also, please cite which judgement by the UN Court of Human Rights is at loggerheads with my position?

As for Amnesty International, they certainly have done brilliant Human Rights work over the years. But that doesn't give them the right to redefine Human Rights to suit their political agenda.

You know, Nick, you're right, there isn't an explicitly listed "right" to an abortion.

However, that doesn't mean that a woman's human rights can't be violated as a result of our legal prohibition on abortion.

An example from another state to begin with. In 1973 the landmark Roe v. Wade decision was handed down by the US Supreme Court. However, this case in legalising abortion did not establish a "right to abortion". It found that banning abortion constituted a violation of women's human rights under the 14th amendment.

Similarly, our legislative environment can produce situations where a woman's human rights are violated because of our prohibition on abortion. The Mellet case referenced by smacl and Pro Hoc Vice found that the failure of the Irish government to provide for abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality constitutes a violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR relating to cruel or inhuman treatment:

"The Committee additionally notes, as stated in General Comment No. 20, that the text of article 7 allows of no limitation, and no justification or extenuating circumstances may be invoked to excuse a violation of article 7 for any reasons. Accordingly, the Committee considers that, taken together, the above facts amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant."

Similarly, by not providing abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality the government also violated Ms. Mellet's right to equality under Article 26:

"In its General Comment No. 28 on non-discrimination the Committee states that “not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant”. The Committee notes the author’s claim that Ireland’s criminalization of abortion subjected her to a gender-based stereotype of the reproductive role of women primarily as mothers, and that stereotyping her as a reproductive instrument subjected her to discrimination. The Committee considers that the differential treatment to which the author was subjected in relation to other similarly situated women failed to adequately take into account her medical needs and socio-economic circumstances and did not meet the requirements of reasonableness, objectivity and legitimacy of purpose. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the failure of the State party to provide services to the author that she required constituted discrimination and violated her rights under article 26 of the Covenant.

While the Mellet case refers to a particular scenario (i.e. fatal foetal abnormality), the takeaway from this decision is that just because there isn't an explicit right to abortion doesn't mean that banning abortion can't result in the violation of women's human rights.

Nick Park

oldrnwisr wrote: »

An example from another state to begin with. In 1973 the landmark Roe v. Wade decision was handed down by the US Supreme Court. However, this case in legalising abortion did not establish a "right to abortion". It found that banning abortion constituted a violation of women's human rights under the 14th amendment.

Really? My understanding of Roe versus Wade is that it ruled (on pretty dubious grounds IMHO) that abortion was included in the rights to privacy that US citizens enjoy under their Constitution. The ruling was that a State law in Texas could not overrule the federal rights bestowed by the US constitution. That interpretation makes abortion a civil right (in the US, not necessarily anywhere else), but I am unaware of any point in the Supreme Court decision where reference was made to "Human Rights" or to any of the major Human Rights treaties. If I'm wrong, then maybe you could cite such references?

Now, there is a Human Right to privacy as outlined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But it would take a fair old amount of mental gymnastics and verbal sophistry to try to make it confer a right to abortion: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

oldrnwisr

Nick Park wrote: »

Really? My understanding of Roe versus Wade is that it ruled (on pretty dubious grounds IMHO) that abortion was included in the rights to privacy that US citizens enjoy under their Constitution. The ruling was that a State law in Texas could not overrule the federal rights bestowed by the US constitution. That interpretation makes abortion a civil right (in the US, not necessarily anywhere else), but I am unaware of any point in the Supreme Court decision where reference was made to "Human Rights" or to any of the major Human Rights treaties. If I'm wrong, then maybe you could cite such references?

Now, there is a Human Right to privacy as outlined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But it would take a fair old amount of mental gymnastics and verbal sophistry to try to make it confer a right to abortion: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

The decision in Roe v. Wade was that the decision for a single woman or married couple to have children was a private decision protected under a right to privacy in the Ninth Amendment. The 9th amendment guarantees rights not otherwise explicitly ennumerated in other parts of the Constitution. The aforementioned right to privacy is protected from state interference by the due process clause of the 14th amendment:

"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The court found that Articles 1191-1194 and 1196 of the Texas penal code, which criminalised abortion, infringed on the plaintiff's liberty under the 14th amendment arising out of the plaintiff's right to privacy under the 9th amendment.

I didn't make reference to human rights in a way which I intended or I think can reasonably be inferred to be a quote from the decision (which you can read for yourself here) but rather my description of the case as a human rights case (which it was, since it centred on the plaintiff's right to privacy as it pertained to making medical decisions) was intended to simplify the argument made by the plaintiff.

I'm not sure why the decision which, as a legal decision, would contain the broad phrase human rights instead of mentioning the specific rights infringed. Furthermore, I'm not sure what human rights treaty you expected that Roe v. Wade would quote. The UDHR from 1948 doesn't deal with abortion or any unborn rights. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child wasn't until 1989 and the ICCPR didn't come into force in the US until 1992.

In any case, despite the fact that you keep clamouring for people to demonstrate a right to abortion, the fact remains that prohibitions on abortion can lead to women's rights being violated as demonstrated by Roe v. Wade and the Mellet case. Overly restrictive abortion legislation compromises women's rights and also their safety since many are forced into getting illegal abortions which are often unsafe.

Nick Park

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The decision in Roe v. Wade was that the decision for a single woman or married couple to have children was a private decision protected under a right to privacy in the Ninth Amendment. The 9th amendment guarantees rights not otherwise explicitly ennumerated in other parts of the Constitution. The aforementioned right to privacy is protected from state interference by the due process clause of the 14th amendment:

"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The court found that Articles 1191-1194 and 1196 of the Texas penal code, which criminalised abortion, infringed on the plaintiff's liberty under the 14th amendment arising out of the plaintiff's right to privacy under the 9th amendment.

I didn't make reference to human rights in a way which I intended or I think can reasonably be inferred to be a quote from the decision (which you can read for yourself here) but rather my description of the case as a human rights case (which it was, since it centred on the plaintiff's right to privacy as it pertained to making medical decisions) was intended to simplify the argument made by the plaintiff.

I'm not sure why the decision which, as a legal decision, would contain the broad phrase human rights instead of mentioning the specific rights infringed. Furthermore, I'm not sure what human rights treaty you expected that Roe v. Wade would quote.

Human Rights are a set of rights, guaranteed by international treaties, which have the force to supersede national laws. Therefore, if a case involves Human Rights, it is usual for the lawyers and judges to say so (I was called as a witness in a UK case last year, and because there was a Human Rights element this was specifically referred to by both prosecution, defence and judge).

Since a Human Rights dimension would have been highly relevant to any decision in Roe versus Wade then it is significant that the Supreme Court made no reference to Human Rights.

Therefore it would seem to be stretching the facts to claim that the Supreme Court affirmed any Human rights dimension at all.

In any case, despite the fact that you keep clamouring for people to demonstrate a right to abortion

It's hardly clamouring.

I simply stated that my position on the Eighth Amendment is based on Human Rights considerations - the right to life. I didn't say anyone else had to agree with my interpretation.

As a result, I have been accused of redefining Human Rights. It is reasonable, therefore, for me to request any citation from a major international Human Rights treaty that creates a Human Right to abortion. Despite a lot of opinions, no-one has provided such a citation. It's hardly 'clamouring' therefore, for me to repeat the request.

tommy2bad

Nick Park wrote: »

(snip)
I simply stated that my position on the Eighth Amendment is based on Human Rights considerations - the right to life. I didn't say anyone else had to agree with my interpretation.

As a result, I have been accused of redefining Human Rights. It is reasonable, therefore, for me to request any citation from a major international Human Rights treaty that creates a Human Right to abortion. Despite a lot of opinions, no-one has provided such a citation. It's hardly 'clamouring' therefore, for me to repeat the request.

Your argument depends on reducing human rights down to a single right. While not exactly redefining human rights, you are in fact ignoring a whole slew of rights.
There may not be an explicit right to abortion but denying access to abortion does violate several clearly defined human rights.
The problem is reconciling the conflict.

Absolam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Your argument depends on reducing human rights down to a single right. While not exactly redefining human rights, you are in fact ignoring a whole slew of rights.
There may not be an explicit right to abortion but denying access to abortion does violate several clearly defined human rights.
The problem is reconciling the conflict.

It doesn't really though. Arguably a right to life is the Primary Human Right, because without a right to life what is the point of any other right? So you have the famous "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." from the US Declaration of Independence, and of course the very first right enumerated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is (Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.) and it's the first right set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2 – Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.). Denying access to abortion is certainly seen by some as violating, or infringing on, other rights, but generally only by those who do not view the right to life as being one that should be allowed to people as yet unborn. Providing access to abortion is, obviously, seen by others as violating, or infringing on, the right to life, which is equally clearly defined.

So the argument obviously still turns on whether you choose not to permit an unborn person to have a right to life; if you don't then other rights may have broader scope, but if you do then they are as limited as they are in the case of a born person. It doesn't reduce human rights down to a single right, it says there is a right to be considered which others would say is not to be considered; all the other rights are still there nevertheless.

smacl

tommy2bad wrote: »

Your argument depends on reducing human rights down to a single right. While not exactly redefining human rights, you are in fact ignoring a whole slew of rights.
There may not be an explicit right to abortion but denying access to abortion does violate several clearly defined human rights.
The problem is reconciling the conflict.

The area of fetal rights does seem to be interpreted distinctly from human rights. From my reading of the rights of the pregnant child vs rights of the unborn under the convention on the rights of the child the CRC is ambiguous where the rights of the unborn child come into conflict with the rights of the pregnant woman, and specifically notes that "the rights of a pregnant child trump the rights of a fetus" and "neither the definition of “child” implicit in preambular paragraph 9 nor the text’s call for legal protection before birth could be relied upon by itself to assert the right to life of a fetus". World Health Organization (WHO) and Human Rights Watch also prioritize women's reproductive rights over fetal rights.

Interestingly the original preamble to the CRC did not reference the unborn. Also from the originally linked document "The Holy See led a proposal to reintroduce the words “before as well as after birth” to the fifth preambular paragraph.56 Those in favor of the amendment “stated that the purpose of the amendment was not to preclude the possibility of an abortion.” One can understand the growing gap between leading human rights groups and the church in this context given the extent of religious lobbying in the formation of this treaty.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

The area of fetal rights does seem to be interpreted distinctly from human rights. From my reading of ....

From your reading of someone else's opinion. While I find wikipedia to be a useful tool, it doesn't quite qualify as a major Human Rights treaty.

the rights of a pregnant child trump the rights of a fetus

Hmm, it's a small sign of progress. But at least we now seem to be agreeing that the unborn child does have rights.

Interestingly the original preamble to the CRC did not reference the unborn.

This statement could easily be misunderstood as saying that there has ever been more than one preamble to the CRC. That, of course would be untrue. As happens with every treaty, there were different drafts and proposals. But only one was signed off on, thus becoming the original.

In fact, the wording about "before, as well as after birth" was by far the original since it was the very phrase used in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child which already existed 30 years before the drafting of the CRC.

So, a truer portrayal of the situation is that the phrase was part of the original United Nations Human Rights resolution on children in 1959, that someone tried 30 years later to prevent it from being included in the CRC, and that the attempt to change it failed. Therefore it was carried forward into the original, and only, Preamble that has ever been ratified.

Also from the originally linked document "The Holy See led a proposal to reintroduce the words “before as well as after birth” to the fifth preambular paragraph.56 Those in favor of the amendment “stated that the purpose of the amendment was not to preclude the possibility of an abortion.” One can understand the growing gap between leading human rights groups and the church in this context given the extent of religious lobbying in the formation of this treaty.

If you're going to start junking any Human Rights legislation that was enacted as the result of religious lobbying then you have a big job ahead of you. Time to reintroduce slavery in the UK and the USA?

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

From your reading of someone else's opinion. While I find wikipedia to be a useful tool, it doesn't quite qualify as a major Human Rights treaty.

Hmm, it's a small sign of progress. But at least we now seem to be agreeing that the unborn child does have rights.

The quoted section was from the Boston University International Law Journal, which states "neither the definition of “child” implicit in preambular paragraph 9 nor the text’s call for legal protection before birth could be relied upon by itself to assert the right to life of a fetus"

If you're going to start junking any Human Rights legislation that was enacted as the result of religious lobbying then you have a big job ahead of you.

Yet you happily junk any UN committee, Amnesty International, World Health Organisation, European Court of Humans Rights and Human Rights Watch as being politically biased whenever any of their statements contradict your world view. You seem to be hanging your entire argument on one line of a preamble to one treaty and using that as an excuse to junk every other contrary statement of which there are many.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

The quoted section was from the Boston University International Law Journal, which states "neither the definition of “child” implicit in preambular paragraph 9 nor the text’s call for legal protection before birth could be relied upon by itself to assert the right to life of a fetus"

And their opinion is duly noted as representing one viewpoint.

Yet you happily junk any UN committee, Amnesty International, World Health Organisation, European Court of Humans Rights and Human Rights Watch as being politically biased whenever any of their statements contradict your world view.

I don't junk them. But I reserve the right to disagree with them, as, when it suits them, do those who want to see the Eighth Amendment repealed.

Which is why, a few months ago, I found myself sitting beside one of the most high profile 'pro-choice' politicians in a TV studio where we both spoke out to advocate a particular Human Rights approach to sex trafficking - one that directly contradicts Amnesty International's muddle-headed and wrong approach.

Afterwards I shook hands with her and said, "that's possibly the one and only time we'll ever be on the same side in a debate."

She replied, "And it's possibly the one and only time that someone will accuse me of being a religious fundamentalist!"

Amnesty International et al have done sterling Human Rights work in the past. I hope they will do so in the future. But it would downright foolishness to pretend they are infallible.

You seem to be hanging your entire argument on one line of a preamble to one treaty and using that as an excuse to junk every other contrary statement of which there are many.

No, I base my argument on the explicitly stated right to life. The various Human Rights treaties have deliberately been framed in such a way as to be ambiguous, thus not defining abortion as a Human Right, but not outlawing it. This ambiguity makes it legitimate for both pro-abortion and anti-abortion advocates to state their cases and appeal to Human Rights. And that is what I am doing.

The statement in the Preamble of the CRC is certainly relevant (at least according to a recent Irish court judgement). Also relevant is the definition those who are afforded rights as "a human being". I think, if we were talking about anything else other than abortion, that the majority of Irish people would see an unborn child, at least at some stage of the pregnancy, as being a 'human being'.

The Vatican makes a dogmatic claim that you become a human being at conception. Others make a dogmatic claim that you don't become a human being until the point of birth. I don't think either position is provable, and I don't think our view of Human Rights should be based on such dogmatism.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

The Vatican makes a dogmatic claim that you become a human being at conception. Others make a dogmatic claim that you don't become a human being until the point of birth. I don't think either position is provable, and I don't think our view of Human Rights should be based on such dogmatism.

For all the banter, I agree entirely with the above. The CRC is ambiguous in its definition of when childhood begins, so it is of questionable value with respects to fetal rights, particularly as so many countries that have ratified the treaty also allow for abortion. Most European countries seem to draw a line around the 10 week mark into gestation, where Ireland goes with implantation. The notion that the foetus should be considered a child at such an early stage does seem to be a religiously inspired position, which is well and good if you hold to that belief, but given that it is not a provable position, why impose it on others with differing beliefs?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

For all the banter, I agree entirely with the above. The CRC is ambiguous in its definition of when childhood begins, so it is of questionable value with respects to fetal rights, particularly as so many countries that have ratified the treaty also allow for abortion. Most European countries seem to draw a line around the 10 week mark into gestation, where Ireland goes with implantation. The notion that the foetus should be considered a child at such an early stage does seem to be a religiously inspired position, which is well and good if you hold to that belief, but given that it is not a provable position, why impose it on others with differing beliefs?

I see the real problem as being that no-one actually knows when personhood begins. People take dogmatic positions, but no-one really knows, and I don't see how we can scientifically attain to such knowledge in the foreseeable future.

History tells us that mankind has an unnerving propensity to define humanity in terms of convenience. We can think of Aristotle asserting that certain races were only fit to be slaves, or the assertion by US slaveholders that blacks were not fully human. Therefore there is a real danger that we define the commencement of personhood in a way that suits our lifestyle, rather than in the interests of justice and Human Rights.

My position is that it is always safer to err on the side of safety. The possible ill-effects of choosing a date before personhood are not as great as the catastrophic wrong we commit if we choose a date after personhood.

Many of us operate on a similar principle when it comes to drinking and driving. It's hard to calculate at just what point alcohol affects your driving so as to endanger someone's life. Most countries try to build a safety margin into the legal limits. Rural politicians, in the pocket of publicans, agitate for much higher limits. Many of us think the safest policy is not to drink at all if you are driving.

Now, you might disagree with my reasoning here, and that's fair enough. But it is unfair to make accusations about trying to impose a theocracy or enforcing my religious views on others. My concern is from a Human Rights perspective, and a desire not to be part of a society that harms others.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

The notion that the foetus should be considered a child at such an early stage does seem to be a religiously inspired position, which is well and good if you hold to that belief, but given that it is not a provable position, why impose it on others with differing beliefs?

The fact that it seems so to you doesn't make it necessarily the case though... remember your obsession with the idea that allowing an embryo to be considered a person required a belief in a soul. You have some form in dismissing notions you dislike on the basis that they can only stem from religion, when realistically they can stem from whatever thought process has led a person to that position.

And I think we've well and truly dealt with the idea that this is something being imposed on others with different beliefs at this stage; we don't say those who believe they should drink and drive ought to be allowed do it, we don't say those who believe they should have sex with children ought to be allowed do it. Societies impose rules on their members, even the ones who with differing beliefs.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I see the real problem as being that no-one actually knows when personhood begins. People take dogmatic positions, but no-one really knows, and I don't see how we can scientifically attain to such knowledge in the foreseeable future.

But surely to afford someone human rights you need to be able to unambiguously define what it is to be a human. As you've said, this is purposely ambiguous in the CRC, such that it can be interpreted differently by different countries that ratified the treaty. If we accept that this lies somewhere between conception and birth, it is then open to discussion whether becoming a person is a discrete event or a continuous process. For it to be a discrete event we would need to understand what this event is and why it is significant. The Vatican seems to think this event is conception, but even Catholic countries such as Ireland that allow over the counter sale of the morning after pill clearly don't share this view. Personally, I think it is a continuous process, and there is no single discrete event but rather multiple developmental stages. The foetus is in the process of becoming a person through gestation.

My position is that it is always safer to err on the side of safety. The possible ill-effects of choosing a date before personhood are not as great as the catastrophic wrong we commit if we choose a date after personhood.

But by that logic you should hold to the dogmatic position that is held by the Vatican is then correct, on the off chance that personhood occurs at conception, and that the morning after pill does constitute abortion. I think the relative difference between my stance and yours is comparable to the difference between your stance and that held by the Vatican.

Now, you might disagree with my reasoning here, and that's fair enough. But it is unfair to make accusations about trying to impose a theocracy or enforcing my religious views on others. My concern is from a Human Rights perspective, and a desire not to be part of a society that harms others.

Perhaps, but regardless of whether your position is a religiously inspired one, or philosophical one purely based on the preamble to the CRC, it is very clear that your perspective on Human Rights and how they relate to the foetus is not one that is broadly accepted outside of the pro-life movement. I consider the pro-life position theocratic is that the bulk of its membership is made up of strongly religious people.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

But surely to afford someone human rights you need to be able to unambiguously define what it is to be a human.

No, I don't think so. You can be supportive of children's rights, for example, irrespective of whether you think someone becomes an adult at 16, 18 or 21. It's perfectly reasonable to allow room for debate on when childhood ends and still advocate for the rights of children.

One of the problems with adopting a dogmatic approach with no safety margin (ie asserting that a child is not a human being until the moment of birth) is that abortion practices then leach over into the treatment after that point has occurred.

So, in the UK, according to this article http://www.standard.co.uk/news/66-babies-in-a-year-left-to-die-after-nhs-abortions-that-go-wrong-6690810.html a report commissioned by the Government revealed that 66 babies in one year survived abortion and were left to die after birth. Half of these lived for at least 30 minutes, while at least one lived for 10 hours.

Here's a particularly chilling quote:

Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends babies over 22 weeks which survive abortion should have their hearts stopped by lethal injection but this can be a difficult procedure for doctors.

Yes, you read that correctly. A medical body in the UK recommends that babies that have been born should receive a lethal injection.

Do you think I'm pursuing a theocracy because I see that as a Human Rights violation?

tommy2bad

Nick Park wrote: »

I see the real problem as being that no-one actually knows when personhood begins. People take dogmatic positions, but no-one really knows, and I don't see how we can scientifically attain to such knowledge in the foreseeable future.

Well personhood begins when you are granted legal rights. Not really the issue here as we are talking about human rights. Corporations have rights as persons but we don't grant them human rights.

Nick Park wrote: »

History tells us that mankind has an unnerving propensity to define humanity in terms of convenience. We can think of Aristotle asserting that certain races were only fit to be slaves, or the assertion by US slaveholders that blacks were not fully human. Therefore there is a real danger that we define the commencement of personhood in a way that suits our lifestyle, rather than in the interests of justice and Human Rights.

Sadly true.

Nick Park wrote: »

My position is that it is always safer to err on the side of safety. The possible ill-effects of choosing a date before personhood are not as great as the catastrophic wrong we commit if we choose a date after personhood.

Unless you count the catastrophic consequences for the mother. The real issue is how to balance the rights of both.

Nick Park wrote: »

Many of us operate on a similar principle when it comes to drinking and driving. It's hard to calculate at just what point alcohol affects your driving so as to endanger someone's life. Most countries try to build a safety margin into the legal limits. Rural politicians, in the pocket of publicans, agitate for much higher limits. Many of us think the safest policy is not to drink at all if you are driving.

However many don't so we have laws that give leeway allowing for the actuality of how we live. It's called harm reduction. Perfection being unattainable we try to lessen the harm. However the situations are not comparable. Drinking is a choice, requiring an abortion may not be.

Nick Park wrote: »

Now, you might disagree with my reasoning here, and that's fair enough. But it is unfair to make accusations about trying to impose a theocracy or enforcing my religious views on others. My concern is from a Human Rights perspective, and a desire not to be part of a society that harms others.

As is your right but you also must consider the consequences of harm to the woman. It's not an easy decision. Anyone who says it is is taking a dogmatic position. I'm in favour of abortion in some circumstances. I'm in favor of abortion being available to anyone who wants it. Let them make that decision for themselves. Let the ones who would 'prevent' abortions provide better options. Not by punishing the choice of others or inflicting more harm on them.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

One of the problems with adopting a dogmatic approach with no safety margin (ie asserting that a child is not a human being until the moment of birth) is that abortion practices then leach over into the treatment after that point has occurred.

So, in the UK, according to this article http://www.standard.co.uk/news/66-babies-in-a-year-left-to-die-after-nhs-abortions-that-go-wrong-6690810.html a report commissioned by the Government revealed that 66 babies in one year survived abortion and were left to die after birth. Half of these lived for at least 30 minutes, while at least one lived for 10 hours.

And yet by linking the above article, you've just highlighted one criteria for which you consider the fetus to be a child, which is possibility of survival outside of the womb. The earliest surviving born child was at 21 weeks. Most European countries allow for abortion on request from 10-14 weeks, where there is no such possibility of survival outside of the womb. Irish women tend to get their abortions in the UK where the limit is 24 weeks, and the fact that they have to travel is likely to delay their abortion. As such it could be argued that the pro-life stance is more likely to increase the probability of the issue raised among Irish women.

I would suggest that the pro-life position is entirely dogmatic, and in pursuing its own dogma is doing considerably more damage than bringing our laws into line with the rest of mainland Europe.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

And yet by linking the above article, you've just highlighted one criteria for which you consider the fetus to be a child, which is possibility of survival outside of the womb.

No, I highlighted cases of babies that are not foetuses at all, but were left to die untended or else are to be murdered by lethal injection. Human Rights violations occurring as a consequence of the UK's abortion practices.

Nowhere did I suggest that it should be used as a criteria to consider a foetus as a child.

I would suggest that the pro-life position is entirely dogmatic, and in pursuing its own dogma is doing considerably more damage than bringing our laws into line with the rest of mainland Europe.

At this point you're simply making baseless accusations rather than addressing what people say.

The idea that no-one is concerned at the killing of unborn children except because it violates a religious dogma is a nonsense.

Now, you didn't answer my question about those 66 babies. Do you agree that their deaths are a Human Rights violation? Am I pursuing a theocracy by viewing them as such?

Crock Rock

Does a child at a viable stage feel pain when they are being killed in the womb?

Sometimes when a woman chooses to have an abortion when she realises that her child has a disability. The chemical used to kill the child is potassium chloride.


Potassium chloride is used to kill men and women on death row in America. This is an extremely painful death for the condemned so they are given a strong anesthetic to make the death easier.


Is a child in the womb given a painkiller before they are killed by being injected with potassium chloride? I hate the think of the child suffering a painful death in the womb.

Cabaal

So, given the recent tasteless protest outside of the National Maternity Hospital with anti abortion protesters with white coffins, I'm interested to hear views of Christians on this protest.

These protestors seem to think that "anything goes" and they are free to upset other mothers and couples who may have lost much wanted pregnancy's.

Do you think the ends justify the means? Or do you think the protest was bang out of order?

If you are not sure what I'm on about check out https://www.thejournal.ie/baby-coffins-outside-hospital-4717168-Jul2019/