Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Nick Park · 30-10-2015 3:22pm

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

You are indulging in logical and semantical acrobatics.

The choice whether to impose the death penalty or not is a binary choice.
Of course, outside of that binary choice, there are a range of other choices.

The choice of whether to kill an unborn child or not is a binary choice.
Outside of that binary choice there are a range of other choices.

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.

My lack of understanding of what it means to be pregnant is exactly equal to your lack of understanding of what it means to be the judge in a murder trial. Yet we both still have the right to discuss such things and express our opinions.

And of course the two scenarios are different, no-one said otherwise. I was simply pointing out how your insinuation that anyone who doesn't share your own opinion is 'anti-choice' is illogical and inconsistent. You wouldn't use language in that way in other cases, so you shouldn't do it here either.

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, when discussing major social issues, we commonly refer to them by the issues at stake, not by numbers.

For example, during the last Referendum I didn't hear anyone calling themselves the pro-34th side.

Because your suggestion is confusing not to say meaningless : pro a right to life for whom?

It's much less confusing than pro-choice (in which the child gets no choice whatsoever).

'Right to life' sounds pretty good. Nor is it confusing or meaningless. The 8th amendment clearly states that mother and baby alike have a right to life. What is confusing about that?

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.

The amendment, which you say is what it is all about, states equal right to life. The woman gets priority on the basis that loss of the mother's life will inevitably mean loss of the child's life also. The principle of "Better one regrettable loss of life than two losses of life" is entirely compatible with the principle of equality of life. It is not that the mother has a greater right to life, but rather a recognition that the child's life depends on the mother's continued life.

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.

A status quo whereby both sides are allowed to use propaganda. Try to look at this with both eyes.

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!

I just have explained.

Still, if you want to keep it short then I guess I'll have to stick with 'equality' and 'anti-equality'.

volchitsa · 30-10-2015 3:54pm

the last amendment is not a good analogy because:
1) the amendment wasn't yet in the constitution, whereas now we're discussing whether or not to keep an amendment commonly referred to by that number, even though it actually has a different number as an article of the constitution. So the fact is that it is generally known by the term "the 8th amendment" - which makes pro and anti 8th a suitable nomenclature for all sides of the debate. Short and easily recognised, so no possible confusion with anything else.

And also because:
2) during the last referendum there was already an agreed term, SSM, which few if any had any major issues with, even though some might have chosen a different term.

As for pro and anti equality, off you go with that one, but I think you'll find most people will assume you're trying for a rerun of the SSM referendum.

Nick Park · 30-10-2015 4:07pm

volchitsa wrote: »

As for pro and anti equality, off you go with that one, but I think you'll find most people will assume you're trying for a rerun of the SSM referendum.

Birth Equality - I like it!

volchitsa · 30-10-2015 4:26pm

Nick Park wrote: »

Birth Equality - I like it!

Really? What about miscarriages, don't they have rights then?

Oh I get it, you're trolling! You nearly had me there!

Nick Park · 30-10-2015 4:36pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Really? What about miscarriages, don't they have rights then?

Someone is apparently trolling, that's for sure.

I think you are, in reality, much more intelligent than to think for even an instant that deaths through natural causes thereby invalidate the principle that human beings should be afforded equal rights.

"Don't heart attacks have human rights then? No? Then don't give me all this guff about all people having an equal right not to be killed!"

Overheal · 30-10-2015 4:48pm

Because, when discussing major social issues, we commonly refer to them by the issues at stake, not by numbers.

For example, during the last Referendum I didn't hear anyone calling themselves the pro-34th side.

California rang..

frag420 · 30-10-2015 4:55pm

Nick Park wrote: »

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?

Move on!! This " I am offended" trick has been well versed several times.
I told you I did not mean offence. You can take that at face value and move on or you can stay offended without an apology and you get nowhere!?

At the end of the day I believe if a woman's health is at risk, if a woman's life is at risk then abort abort abort!! I will not apologise for that, its my beliefs.

However let me stress I am not for abortion as a form of contraception!

Either way I have moved on.........I urge you to do the same!!

volchitsa · 30-10-2015 5:12pm

Nick Park wrote: »

Someone is apparently trolling, that's for sure.

I think you are, in reality, much more intelligent than to think for even an instant that deaths through natural causes thereby invalidate the principle that human beings should be afforded equal rights.

"Don't heart attacks have human rights then? No? Then don't give me all this guff about all people having an equal right not to be killed!"

You're genuinely not making sense. We're talking about the rights of the unborn, right? You're not comparaing them to organs, are you? Otherwise there wouldn't be an issue around abortion at all. So when you say "birth equality" how does a miscarried fetus not also have the same right to be born? Perhaps the woman needed to remain in bed instead of going out partying, and she could have avoided the miscarriage. Presumably all unborn have equal protection with this shiny slogan of yours?

The other way your term "birth equality" could be interpreted is once people are actually born - and that doesn't imply any protection for the unborn at all. I'd actually get behind that, btw.

So I'm not sure why you say I'm trolling, I'm genuinely not. Just trying to work out what this term means.

And I still don't think it can work in the way I assume you want it to.

But as I say, off you go and try to sell it as a working title. I have nothing against it except that it's ambiguous and won't make your stance clear at all. But hey, that's your problem not mine.

The Randy Riverbeast · 30-10-2015 6:32pm

Overheal wrote: »

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

I look forward to novembers attempt. It has failed before and it will fail again. But hey, they can waste time and money so there will be people who will think they are actually doing something.

robdonn · 30-10-2015 7:07pm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I look forward to novembers attempt. It has failed before and it will fail again. But hey, they can waste time and money so there will be people who will think they are actually doing something.

Republicans wasting government time and money?! Never!!

cattolico · 30-10-2015 8:41pm

Out in Newsweek today Ireland's Pro-Life Ethos Is Life-Saving, Not Life-Ending

Good arguments, I quote the three why we have to keep the 8th Amendment.

1. First, it is argued that abortion is a right under international human rights law. This is untrue, and the fact that this argument is proposed by groups like Amnesty International in their campaign in favor of abortion is surprising. There is no such thing as a right to abortion in international human rights law. (There is a right to life; it is acknowledged in Article 3 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, something proponents of abortion conveniently ignore).

2. The second claim involves an attempt to portray Ireland as some kind of international backwater due to its concern to protect innocent human life. But Ireland is a progressive, young and extremely well-educated country. Even despite the effects of the global economic crash, we have one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. We have robust anti-discrimination legislation. Women and gay people proudly occupy some of our highest public offices. We have no far-right political party and no back-alley abortion clinics. Far from being embarrassed by our pro-life Constitution, Irish people embrace it. Abortion campaigners know this. Recently, a leading pro-choice politician (and Government Minister), Aodhan O'Riordan, admitted as much when he said that if a referendum were to be held on repealing the 8th Amendment it would almost certainly be defeated.

3.the continual insistence that Ireland's protection of unborn humans jeopardizes the lives and health of Irish women. This erroneous claim has the effect of making people think Ireland is an unsafe place to be pregnant. The truth of the matter is that Ireland is a country that has consistently ranked among the safest in the world for pregnant women. We have a lower maternal mortality rate than a whole host of countries with liberal abortion regimes. We know from the series of official reports that issued after the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012 that her death was due to undiagnosed infection, not the abortion law. Protecting the lives of unborn babies doesn't have to come at the cost of maternal health care. Abortion is life-ending, not life-saving and pregnancy itself is not an illness. Doctors in Ireland recognize this by caring for both mother and baby.

PopePalpatine · 30-10-2015 9:30pm

You neglected to add it was written by Cora Sherlock. :rolleyes:

cattolico · 30-10-2015 9:40pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You neglected to add it was written by Cora Sherlock

The very fact that Newsweek is running the story today speaks for itself.

The arguments put forward by Cora are correct.

PopePalpatine · 30-10-2015 9:44pm

Chances are that they may have wanted to be "fair and balanced" and offer her side a right of reply after this piece, dated 19 October: http://europe.newsweek.com/ireland-dangerous-place-be-pregnant-335047

cattolico · 30-10-2015 9:52pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Chances are that they may have wanted to be "fair and balanced" and offer her side a right of reply after this piece, dated 19 October.

Of course, I expect the law action woke them up. I've never read anything so idiotic. A Dangerous Place to be Pregnant.

68 women died due to pregnancy complications in France in 2013 of live births. Which has abortion.

Ireland is no where near that rate.

The reality does not reflect the headline. Ireland is one of the best countries to be pregnant. That facts support this.

Delirium · 30-10-2015 9:59pm

What does it matter that Newsweek published a opinion piece by Cora? Does it make it more noteworthy that it's on Newsweeks site rather than the Irish Catholic website?

cattolico wrote: »

Of course, I expect the law action woke them up. I've never read anything so idiotic. A Dangerous Place to be Pregnant.

68 women died due to pregnancy complications in France in 2013 of live births. Which has abortion.

Ireland is no where near that rate.

The reality does not reflect the headline. Ireland is one of the best countries to be pregnant. That facts support this.

And we're discussing abortion, which is about women who have complications with the pregnancy and/or don't want to be pregnant and wish to have an abortion.

Saying Ireland is the best country to be pregnant is irrelevant as the women the discussion pertains to don't want to be pregnant.

cattolico · 30-10-2015 10:37pm

Delirium wrote: »

And we're discussing abortion, which is about women who have complications with the pregnancy and/or don't want to be pregnant and wish to have an abortion.

Saying Ireland is the best country to be pregnant is irrelevant as the women the discussion pertains to don't want to be pregnant.

don't want to be pregnant?? Condom, pill, morning after pill, ..

Kev W · 30-10-2015 10:41pm

cattolico wrote: »

don't want to be pregnant?? Condom, pill, morning after pill, ..

Less than 100% effective, less than 100%effective, less than 100 % effective.

cattolico · 30-10-2015 10:43pm

Kev W wrote: »

Less than 100% effective, less than 100%effective, less than 100 % effective.

Yes we know. Maybe people should be saying this more. The reality remains having sex means you might get pregnant. Own up to your responsibility instead of killing it.

lazygal · 30-10-2015 10:43pm

cattolico wrote: »

don't want to be pregnant?? Condom, pill, morning after pill, ..

Even abstinence isn't safe. As Mary was obliged to Say Yes.

cattolico · 30-10-2015 10:45pm

lazygal wrote: »

Even abstinence isn't safe.

Abstinence seems like a dirty word today.

Kev W · 30-10-2015 10:46pm

cattolico wrote: »

Yes we know. Maybe people should be saying this more. The reality remains having sex means you might get pregnant. Own up to your responsibility instead of killing it.

So no sex unless you want kids then?

Kev W · 30-10-2015 10:46pm

cattolico wrote: »

Abstinence seems like a dirty word today.

Not a dirty word, just a ridiculously outdated one.

lazygal · 30-10-2015 10:48pm

cattolico wrote: »

Abstinence seems like a dirty word today.

It should be. It meant people like Elizabeth Smart felt she was used up chewing gum after being abducted and raped, and was held captive for nine months as she felt her parents wouldn't want her back once she'd had sex of any kind outside marriage. She now campaigns against abstinence based sex ed.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/06/1967591/elizabeth-smart-abstinence-ed/

cattolico · 30-10-2015 10:52pm

Kev W wrote: »

So no sex unless you want kids then?

What did nature intend sex for? No I am not arguing that point. If you don't want kids there are many options. Guys can get the snip etc, contraception etc.

But the simple reality is no matter how many options are laid out, it will always go back to abortion as the contraception of last resort. This devalues what human life is.

So, no I am not proposing the Christian ethos on sex in society.. However human life is life and it should have rights at whatever stage of its development.

cattolico · 30-10-2015 10:55pm

lazygal wrote: »

It should be. It meant people like Elizabeth Smart felt she was used up chewing gum after being abducted and raped, and was held captive for nine months as she felt her parents wouldn't want her back once she'd had sex of any kind outside marriage. She now campaigns against abstinence based sex ed.

Did I advocate only abstinence based sex ed? Don't you think that abstinence is ONE of the choices we should lay out? How long should you know someone before you jump into bed? There has to be a certain period of discernment.

lazygal · 30-10-2015 10:55pm

cattolico wrote: »

What did nature intend sex for? No I am not arguing that point. If you don't want kids there are many options. Guys can get the snip etc, contraception etc.

But the simple reality is no matter how many options are laid out, it will always go back to abortion as the contraception of last resort. This devalues what human life is.

So, no I am not proposing the Christian ethos on sex in society.. However human life is life and it should have rights at whatever stage of its development.

Do you know how difficult it is for women to get a tubal ligation in Ireland? How many can't use hormonal contraception? Do you know many women who decide on abortion already have children?

No, you don't care. Compulsory gestation is the main thing, regardless of any other considerations. Of course you've been told all of this in your many other incarnations on this and other threads so I don't know why you think repeating the same tired pro life mantras do your cause any good.

Delirium · 30-10-2015 10:55pm

cattolico wrote: »

don't want to be pregnant?? Condom, pill, morning after pill, ..

Abortion is when a woman is pregnant, that's what we're discussing.

cattolico wrote: »

Abstinence seems like a dirty word today.

suggesting abstinence to a pregnant woman seems somewhat redundant tbh.

lazygal · 30-10-2015 10:58pm

cattolico wrote: »

Did I advocate only abstinence based sex ed? Don't you think that abstinence is ONE of the choices we should lay out? How long should you know someone before you jump into bed? There has to be a certain period of discernment.

Should the amount of time people wait to have sex be related directly to their ability to get pregnant? Does that mean older people who can't get pregnant or those who are infertile should wait less time before jumping into bed?

What are the benefits of abstinence based sex ed, as one of the choices, empirically? Why does there have to be a certain period of discernment? Mary wasn't allowed to wait before she was impregnated.

cattolico · 30-10-2015 11:00pm

lazygal wrote: »

Do you know many women who decide on abortion already have children?

Do that justifies kill a child does it? Why should one child have a right to life and another not?

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Comments