Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Timberrrrrrrr

cattolico wrote: »

If you have the means to save a person then you should use them. Its the exact same if a pregnant mother is dying because the pregnancy is killing her, you terminate to avoid death. There was no intention to kill the child, but you also can't allow the mother die.

If you terminate then there is a clear intention to kill "the child".

EoghanIRL

cattolico wrote: »

Personally I think we should as much as possible let nature takes its course and respect the dignity of the person.

You realise that nature spontaneously aborts an embryo if something goes wrong within the first 2-3 weeks.
I heard before that 95 percent of pregnancies fail.
The embryo is just shed or a woman's period is delayed.
If you ever get a chance to study embryology you will see that a lot of things can go wrong during pregnancy and often the consequence is that they are simply not compatible with life.

That's natures way of dealing with a failed pregnancy.

lazygal

cattolico wrote: »

If you have the means to save a person then you should use them. Its the exact same if a pregnant mother is dying because the pregnancy is killing her, you terminate to avoid death. There was no intention to kill the child, but you also can't allow the mother die.

What about when the unborn is being crushed to death by the woman's organs. Is it killing that child if an abortion is carried out?
The nonsense that some abortions don't target the unborn child is completely ridiculous. Just another pro-life lie.

robdonn

cattolico wrote: »

Well put. Also the Irish Constitution protects the rights of the unborn.

The Irish Constitution protects one right of the unborn, the right to life. No other rights are guaranteed.

And regarding the Declaration of the Rights of the Child:

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is unclear on the issue of whether, under its provisions, a child’s life begins at birth, at conception, or at some point in between. The possibility of asserting the rights of the unborn under the Convention raises the problem of the right to life of a fetus conflicting with the right to life, health, and best interests of a pregnant girl. Since the Convention entered into force in 1990, the practice of the treaty body charged with its interpretation and application has suggested an emerging normative approach to this problem. In light of the ambiguity in the Convention, international law has developed which considers that the rights of the mother supercede the right to life of an unborn child under the Convention. The law also affords a fetus limited right to protection, evidenced by the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s disapproval of the use of abortion as a contraceptive method. There is no regional human rights practice contrary to the emerging norm. In fact, an investigation of regional bodies’ positions on the rights of the unborn suggest that their future practice would be consistent with this emerging norm.

Those states parties that submitted reservations and declarations safeguarding domestic legal abortion against the Convention predicted that the Convention’s ambiguity regarding fetal rights might be used to challenge the legality of abortion under international human rights law. Though subsequent interpretations of the Convention have not yet been used to challenge national abortion laws, the opposite of those reserving states’ predictions may prove true. The international law that has emerged from the Convention’s ambiguity might be used, instead, to strike down laws restricting the legality of and access to abortions for pregnant children, when abortion would protect a girl’s life, health, or best interests.

Source:
RIGHTS OF THE PREGNANT CHILD VS. RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN UNDER THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Timberrrrrrrr

amendment of the 8th about to be talked about on VB

Overheal

cattolico wrote: »

Yeah. Well us Christians don't treat kids or Anyone else as medical waste

cattolico wrote: »

If you have the means to save a person then you should use them. Its the exact same if a pregnant mother is dying because the pregnancy is killing her, you terminate to avoid death. There was no intention to kill the child, but you also can't allow the mother die.

:cool:

Overheal

cattolico wrote: »

Foetus an unborn child especially after attaining the basic structural plan of a human being.

That's not empirical evidence of anything.

Kev W

cattolico wrote: »

Foetus an unborn child especially after attaining the basic structural plan of a human being.

You can't just reword your position and claim it as proof of your position.

Delirium

cattolico wrote: »

Foetus an unborn child especially after attaining the basic structural plan of a human being.

you realise that if you are using "attaining the basic structural plan of a human being" as a definition, then the brain-dead and corpses are people.

frag420

Delirium wrote: »

you realise that if you are using "attaining the basic structural plan of a human being" as a definition, then the brain-dead and corpses are people.

Yeah but sure didn't Jesus rise from the dead so something something multiplied by lack of logic divided by empirical evidence equals the sanctity of life..........or did I get my math wrong?

Nick Park

Delirium wrote: »

you realise that if you are using "attaining the basic structural plan of a human being" as a definition, then the brain-dead and corpses are people.

At the risk of being pedantic, dead people are still generally referred to, and treated as, people. They are human beings, albeit dead ones. They are obviously not afforded the same rights as the living - but most of us would treat the body of a dead person very differently than we would the corpse of a dog or a pigeon.

frag420

Nick Park wrote: »

At the risk of being pedantic, dead people are still generally referred to, and treated as, people. They are human beings, albeit dead ones. They are obviously not afforded the same rights as the living - but most of us would treat the body of a dead person very differently than we would the corpse of a dog or a pigeon.

Yet you lot(some anti choice folks) treat a living dog better than a living woman by affording the dog access to an abortion if its health/life is under threat through pregnancy?:rolleyes:

Nick Park

frag420 wrote: »

Yet you treat a living dog better than a living woman by affording the dog access to an abortion if its health/life is under threat through pregnancy?:rolleyes:

For what it's worth I support the practice of performing abortions where a woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy. If my Old English Sheepdog's life was threatened by a pregnancy then I would have the dog put to sleep.

Would you be so kind as to apologise for falsely and untruthfully accusing me of treating a living dog better than a living woman? Surely we can debate stuff on here without that kind of nonsense?

frag420

Nick Park wrote: »

For what it's worth I support the practice of performing abortions where a woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy. If my Old English Sheepdog's life was threatened by a pregnancy then I would have the dog put to sleep.

Would you be so kind as to apologise for falsely and untruthfully accusing me of treating a living dog better than a living woman? Surely we can debate stuff on here without that kind of nonsense?

For what its worth it was not directed at you but the general anti choice brigade here that hate the idea of a woman being in charge of her own body.

Nick Park

frag420 wrote: »

For what its worth it was not directed at you but the general anti choice brigade here that hate the idea of a woman being in charge of her own body.

You cited a rather inoffensive quote of mine and then posted underneath it:

Yet you treat a living dog better than a living woman by affording the dog access to an abortion if its health/life is under threat through pregnancy?

Whether the second person pronoun is singular or plural, by any understanding of the English language that was directed at me.

It was a false and untruthful stereotype and generalisation, based purely on prejudice rather than on anything I had posted. Will you please apologise and withdraw the untruthful accusation?

volchitsa

May I suggest we drop the comparisons between animals and people? They don't work for a number of reasons - euthanasia is allowed for dogs and not for people for one thing. Although I'm really not sure a vet would do as you say, Nick Cage - I don't think he/she would agree to put a pregnant animal down just because you didn't want to pay to terminate the pregnancy. I don't live in the RoI, so maybe vets there are different, but over here I've heard of cases where the vet refused to put an animal down just on its owners say-so.

frag420

Nick Park wrote: »

You cited a rather inoffensive quote of mine and then posted underneath it:


Whether the second person pronoun is singular or plural, by any understanding of the English language that was directed at me.

It was a false and untruthful stereotype and generalisation, based purely on prejudice rather than on anything I had posted. Will you please apologise and withdraw the untruthful accusation?

it was a typo!! Its not based on prejudice at all, that is a very offensive thing to say about me, care to apologise to me too??

Or can we all be adult about it and stop taking offence just for the sake of it. I have clarified what I meant, lets move on!!

I have also edited my post so that when you re read it that sense of offence you had will be missing and you can move on.............you're very welcome!!

robdonn

Nick Park wrote: »

At the risk of being pedantic, dead people are still generally referred to, and treated as, people. They are human beings, albeit dead ones. They are obviously not afforded the same rights as the living - but most of us would treat the body of a dead person very differently than we would the corpse of a dog or a pigeon.

Side note:
Speaking of how we treat the dead led me to reading a surprisingly interesting article about the rights of the dead. Definitely worth a read.

OK, now continue...

Delirium

frag420 wrote: »

Yet you lot(some anti choice folks) treat a living dog better than a living woman by affording the dog access to an abortion if its health/life is under threat through pregnancy?:rolleyes:

MOD NOTE

Your original version of the post definitely read as being directed at the poster you replied to.

Please remember to attack the post, not the poster.

Thanks for your attention.

frag420

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Your original version of the post definitely read as being directed at the poster you replied to.

Please remember to attack the post, not the poster.

Thanks for your attention.

Which I amended and explained above. I am human, I make mistakes.

I am not infallible...........nobody is!!

robdonn

frag420 wrote: »

Which I amended and explained above. I am human, I make mistakes.

I am not infallible...........nobody is!!

Ahem...

Delirium

Nick Park wrote: »

At the risk of being pedantic, dead people are still generally referred to, and treated as, people. They are human beings, albeit dead ones. They are obviously not afforded the same rights as the living - but most of us would treat the body of a dead person very differently than we would the corpse of a dog or a pigeon.

Agreed. But the poster I replied to was stating that nothing more than "attaining the basic structural plan of a human being"was required to be declared a person (i.e. a foetus is a person).

They were stating it was empirical evidence of being a person. AFAIK, personhood is generally defined (and there are more than one of them) in the realm of philosophy or law.

frag420

That's the costume I have picked for a Halloween party this weekend..............how odd!!

However I expect I will be doing my share of sinning Sat night!!

robdonn wrote: »

Ahem...

Nick Park

frag420 wrote: »

Which I amended and explained above. I am human, I make mistakes.

I am not infallible...........nobody is!!

Your amending it changed nothing.

You amended it to "you lot" which is still directed at me by using the second person pronoun.

Indeed, you have compounded your personal accusation by combining it with an extremely dishonest debating trick. This is where you conflate somebody else as being part of a group, and then ascribe a behaviour or trait to that group, even though you know very well that the other person is not involved in that behaviour or trait.

For example, if I said to a school teacher, "You lot (some teachers) sexually abuse children" then that would be grossly offensive and a downright lie. Unless the teacher I am addressing (by using the second person pronoun) is indeed a child abuser then my statement would be reprehensible.

Why do you use such grubby tricks? Would it not be better if we had a civilised and respectful discussion about the sanctity of life?

Overheal

Unless you believe you are the policy decider on whether a dog gets an abortion, I think this line of argument is pointless and pedantic.

Nick Park

Overheal wrote: »

Unless you believe you are the policy decider on whether a dog gets an abortion, I think this line of argument is pointless and pedantic.

I would think that a debate about whether dogs get abortions or not probably belongs in a Pet Forum.

But if one poster makes false accusations against another then surely it is in order to protest such behaviour and to appeal for a more civilised and respectful discussion?

People can have strong views on this issue but still behave respectfully towards one another. For example, there is little to be gained by using pejorative terms such as 'anti-choice', 'anti-life', or 'pro-death'.

It seems to me that reasoned discussion would be better facilitated if we used common terminology (pro-life & pro-choice - we can always use inverted commas if we want to make a point!).

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

People can have strong views on this issue but still behave respectfully towards one another. For example, there is little to be gained by using pejorative terms such as 'anti-choice', 'anti-life', or 'pro-death'.

It seems to me that reasoned discussion would be better facilitated if we used common terminology (pro-life & pro-choice - we can always use inverted commas if we want to make a point!).

I agree that the animal business needs to be dropped, and said so earlier. Not so sure about your "common terminology" point though, or not as you propose it anyway, when "pro-life" clearly implies that opponents are "anti-life", which is a patent attempt at propaganda, whereas "pro-choice" is literally true.

No-one who wants abortion to be available wants a high number of abortions, so they aren't "pro-abortion" but they do want women to have a choice. Those who are against legalizing abortion do want to remove that choice, so pro-/anti-choice is not a complete misnomer in the way pro/anti-life is.

I could settle for anti-abortion and pro-choice, but anything more towards the terms used by the anti-legalization of abortion movement seems to me to be far too loaded and inaccurate.

What about pro-/anti- the 8th? Would that work for both sides?

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

I agree that the animal business needs to be dropped, and said so earlier. Not so sure about your "common terminology" point though, or not as you propose it anyway, when "pro-life" clearly implies that opponents are "anti-life", which is a patent attempt at propaganda, whereas "pro-choice" is literally true.

No-one who wants abortion to be available wants a high number of abortions, so they aren't "pro-abortion" but they do want women to have a choice. Those who are against legalizing abortion do want to remove that choice, so pro-/anti-choice is not a complete misnomer in the way pro/anti-life is.

I could settle for anti-abortion and pro-choice, but anything more towards the terms used by the anti-legalization of abortion movement seems to me to be far too loaded and inaccurate.

What about pro-/anti- the 8th? Would that work for both sides?

I think you are chancing your arm somewhat.

If we were discussing the death penalty, neither of us would accept terminology whereby those of us who are against capital punishment were labelled 'anti-choice' (on the basis that we are restricting judge's freedom to choose to impose the death penalty).

I object to the 'anti-choice' implication just as much as you do to the 'anti-life' implication.

However, your suggestion concerning the 8th amendment merits further thought. Since the key phrases in that amendment, which you want to see removed, are 'right to life' and 'equal right to life', then that could provide us with commonly agreed terminology, no?

We could have the 'right to life' side and the 'anti-right to life' side. Or, if that's too long-winded, how about the 'pro-equality' and 'anti-equality' sides.

Or we could both stop trying to have our cake and eat it, and we could adopt a reasonable compromise such as I suggested in my previous post.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

I think you are chancing your arm somewhat.

If we were discussing the death penalty, neither of us would accept terminology whereby those of us who are against capital punishment were labelled 'anti-choice' (on the basis that we are restricting judge's freedom to choose to impose the death penalty).

I object to the 'anti-choice' implication just as much as you do to the 'anti-life' implication.

That doesn't really make sense, because the judge always has a choice, in fact a multiplicity of choices - whether to dismiss the case, what kind and length of sentence to impose, whether he can declare mitigating circumstances etc - and most of all, it's only a job, not his body, health and possibly his life that's at stake.

Whereas for the woman it's a binary choice once she is pregnant, either she can choose to end the pregnancy or she can't. Depending on where she lives. And a pregnancy is nothing like choosing what sentence it inflict on a criminal. The fact that you can compare the two is actually quite bizarre and shows a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be pregnant.

However, your suggestion concerning the 8th amendment merits further thought. Since the key phrases in that amendment, which you want to see removed, are 'right to life' and 'equal right to life', then that could provide us with commonly agreed terminology, no?

Why select quotations from parts of the act when it has a commonly understood name? What was wrong with the term pro-8th, anti-8th?

Because your suggestion is confusing not to say meaningless : pro a right to life for whom? Plus it's not true to say it's an equal right to life - if it were, women would have to take their chances along with the embryo/fetus when there's a problem, whereas it's now clear that precedent says the woman always gets priority.

We could have the 'right to life' side and the 'anti-right to life' side. Or, if that's too long-winded, how about the 'pro-equality' and 'anti-equality' sides.

Or we could both stop trying to have our cake and eat it, and we could adopt a reasonable compromise such as I suggested in my previous post.

But you haven't suggested a compromise, you want a return to the status quo ante, despite having it explained to you why that in itself is allowing one side to use propaganda.

And you haven't explained why you object to my suggestion, which is a genuine attempt at a compromise, with no pejorative connotations on either side.

And it isn't even as long as your suggestions either!

Overheal

Moving on...

As I called out a few weeks ago in the thread, the political attempts to defund PP are failing to hold. Federal courts have overturned actions in Louisiana and in Alabama to defund Planned Parenthood clinics in either state

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-orders-louisiana-continue-funding-planned-parenthood-052450235.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/us/judge-blocks-alabama-from-ending-funding-to-planned-parenthood.html?_r=0

In his ruling, which was issued Wednesday, Judge Myron Thompson said that Alabama had not identified a legal reason to cut off funding to the organization and that the state’s action probably violated a free-choice-of-provider provision of the federal Medicaid Act that limits a state’s ability to ban family planning providers for reasons unrelated to quality of care.