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
-
It could be I suppose... you'd have to ask the various Justices if they'd agree with you though? Maybe dough that's been proven rather than just basic dough would be closer. Though both are probably a bit of a stretch as analogies go... isn't a bun more usual than bread in that regard? All in all probably just proving the limits of relying on analogies perhaps.
So it's a matter of opinion? Because this...Well... Irish jurisprudence does refer to the 'unborn child', both in the High Court and the Supreme Court, so there is really.
...would seem to indicate you thought it was a matter of fact.
Have you changed your position is the few minutes between these posts?0 -
-
Only if you consider personhood begins at conception/implantation.You do if you abort them.
For example, if a person considers conception as when personhood begins then any medical devices/pills that stop implantation could be seen as killing another person.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Only if you consider personhood begins at conception/implantation.
For example, if a person considers conception as when personhood begins then any medical devices/pills that stop implantation could be seen as killing another person.
No, that is incorrect. It is perfectly reasonable to believe, as many people do, that the unborn child becomes a person in their own right subsequent to conception/implantation but before birth.
There are those who believe, on the basis of religious dogma, that personhood begins at conception. There are others who, equally dogmatic in their push for abortion, maintain that personhood only begins at birth.
However, I strongly suspect that there is a silent majority who hold neither dogmatic extreme. They don't see frozen embryos as being people, nor do they see the morning after pill as abortion. They are left cold by dogmatic assertions and pronouncements by bishops, but they are also repulsed by the dogmatic claim that the baby they see in their ante-natal scans is nothing more than a cluster of cells with no more right to life than a rabbit. Many of them are mothers who, while having no deep religious feelings, talked to their unborn baby while it was still in the womb, instinctively knowing that the little guy kicking inside them was already a person in their own right. It is this excluded middle who will ultimately decide whether the Irish Constitution is amended to permit abortion or not.0 -
No, that is incorrect. It is perfectly reasonable to believe, as many people do, that the unborn child becomes a person in their own right subsequent to conception/implantation but before birth.
There are those who believe, on the basis of religious dogma, that personhood begins at conception. There are others who, equally dogmatic in their push for abortion, maintain that personhood only begins at birth.
However, I strongly suspect that there is a silent majority who hold neither dogmatic extreme. They don't see frozen embryos as being people, nor do they see the morning after pill as abortion. They are left cold by dogmatic assertions and pronouncements by bishops, but they are also repulsed by the dogmatic claim that the baby they see in their ante-natal scans is nothing more than a cluster of cells with no more right to life than a rabbit. Many of them are mothers who, while having no deep religious feelings, talked to their unborn baby while it was still in the womb, instinctively knowing that the little guy kicking inside them was already a person in their own right. It is this excluded middle who will ultimately decide whether the Irish Constitution is amended to permit abortion or not.
Very poetic but poetry should not be conflated with fact.0 -
Advertisement
-
Very poetic but poetry should not be conflated with fact.
Keep thinking like that and you lose any Referendum or political campaign.
Look at any successful political campaign for change, particularly one that involves human rights. Read the speeches of Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela (or indeed of Rory O'Neill). Poetry, appealing as it does to the hearts of people, is a powerful force. Ignore that at your peril.
Poetry aside, my point remains. This issue is not a straight choice between denying personhood to all the unborn or insisting that personhood begins at conception/implantation. Many, possibly most, people are somewhere between those two extremes.0 -
Well that wasn't clear by your post, i.e. "you do if you abort them".No, that is incorrect. It is perfectly reasonable to believe, as many people do, that the unborn child becomes a person in their own right subsequent to conception/implantation but before birth.
Granted it's a brief post but it doesn't clarify as you did above, and read as if you were suggesting that abortion at any stage of the pregnancy is killing a person.
So, would you agree or disagree then that an abortion at say, 2 weeks, would be killing a person?There are those who believe, on the basis of religious dogma, that personhood begins at conception. There are others who, equally dogmatic in their push for abortion, maintain that personhood only begins at birth.
However, I strongly suspect that there is a silent majority who hold neither dogmatic extreme. They don't see frozen embryos as being people, nor do they see the morning after pill as abortion. They are left cold by dogmatic assertions and pronouncements by bishops, but they are also repulsed by the dogmatic claim that the baby they see in their ante-natal scans is nothing more than a cluster of cells with no more right to life than a rabbit. Many of them are mothers who, while having no deep religious feelings, talked to their unborn baby while it was still in the womb, instinctively knowing that the little guy kicking inside them was already a person in their own right. It is this excluded middle who will ultimately decide whether the Irish Constitution is amended to permit abortion or not.
I don't see how they are they are the silent majority, as most of the pro-choice people I've seen post on abortion would fall into the "silent majority" as you call it.
When arguing against abortion, it's nearly always some extreme case that used to argue against it. Be it Gosnell or a child born without a brain who survived against all odds.
It's rarely the >90% of abortions that are discussed, which are before 13 weeks. Or if it is, then it's "abortion is killing a person" (with no qualification of a early part of pregnancy when it's not).
So apologies if I took you up wrong Nick, but it's the first time I've seen someone arguing against abortion but not having conception/implantation as the point when personhood begins.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Why would I change my position? That there is jurisprudence referring to the unborn child is a matter of fact. That someone might think that is like referring to dough as unbaked bread would be a matter of opinion. That seems fairly straightforward?So it's a matter of opinion? Because this...
...would seem to indicate you thought it was a matter of fact.
Have you changed your position is the few minutes between these posts?0 -
It would be tremendously helpful, cattolico, if people such as yourself avoided bringing up the same old tired debunked arguments in debates like these.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).
Article 3 of the 1948 Declaration says nothing about the rights of the unborn. It simply says:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Nowhere in the Declaration is there any implication that "everyone" includes the unborn. Specifically, "everyone" is mentioned in the context of:
the right to a public hearing on criminal charges (Article 10)
the right to freedom of movement within a state (Article 13)
the right to own property (Article 17)
the right to peaceful assembly (Article 20)
The Declaration opens with the phrase that all human beings are "born free" and at no point includes any qualifiers to indicate that the unborn are included in its definitions.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.
You see, here's the thing. The pro-life side in this country always seem to want to claim that public sentiment is by and large on their side. The reality, however, is very different:- A 1997 Irish Times/MRBI poll found that 18% believed that abortion should never be permitted, 77% believed that it should be allowed in certain circumstances (this was broken down into: 35% that one should be allowed in the event that the woman's life is threatened; 14% if her health is at risk; 28% that "an abortion should be provided to those who need it") and 5% were undecided.[14]
- A September 2004 Royal College of Surgeons survey for the Crisis Pregnancy Agency found that, in the under-45 age groups, 51% supported abortion on-demand, with 39% favouring the right to abortion in limited circumstances. Only 8% felt that abortion should not be permitted in any circumstances.[15]
- A September 2005 Irish Examiner/Lansdowne poll found that 36% believe abortion should be legalized while 47% do not.[16]
- A June 2007 TNS/MRBI poll found that 43% supported legal abortion if a woman believed it was in her best interest while 51% remained opposed. 82% favoured legalization for cases when the woman's life is in danger, 75% when the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, and 73% when the pregnancy has resulted from sexual abuse.[17]
- A January 2010 Irish Examiner/Red C online poll found that 60% of 18-35 year olds believe abortion should be legalised, and that 10% of this age group had been in a relationship where an abortion took place. The same survey also showed that 75% of women believed the morning-after pill should be an over-the-counter (OTC) drug, as opposed to a prescription drug.[18]
- A September 2012 Sunday Times/Behaviour and Attitudes poll of 923 people showed that 80% of voters would support a change to the law to allow abortion where the life of the woman was at risk, with 16% opposed and 4% undecided.[19]
- A November 2012 Sunday Business Post/Red C poll of 1,003 adults showed that 85% of voters would like the government to "Legislate for the X case, which means allowing abortion where the mother's life is threatened, including by suicide", with 10% opposed and 5% undecided. The same poll also found that 82% of voters supported "A constitutional amendment to extend the right to abortion to all cases where the health of the mother is seriously threatened and also in cases of rape", and 36% of voters supported "A constitutional amendment to allow for legal abortion in any case where a woman requests it". In addition, 63% of voters also supported "A constitutional amendment to limit the X case, by excluding a threat of suicide as a grounds for abortion, but still allowing abortion, where the mother's life is threatened outside of suicide".[20][21]
- A January 2013 Paddy Power/Red C poll of 1,002 adults found that 29% of voters believed that there should be a constitutional amendment to allow abortion "in any case where the woman requests it". 35% supported legislating for the X case allowing for abortions where the life of the mother is at risk, including from suicide. 26% supported legislating for the X case but excluding suicide and 8% believed no legislation at all was necessary.[22]
- A January 2013 Sunday Times/Behaviour and Attitudes poll of 916 voters found that 87% would support legislation to provide abortion where the woman's life was in danger for reasons other than threat of suicide, 80% would support legislation to provide abortion where there was a foetal abnormality meaning the baby could not survive outside of the womb, 74% would support legislation to provide abortion where the pregnancy was a result of rape, and 59% would support legislation to provide abortion where the woman displayed suicidal feelings. Overall, 92% supported allowing abortion in one of these four circumstances, while 51% supported allowing abortion in all four circumstances.[23]
- A February 2013 Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll of 1,000 voters in face-to-face interviews in all constituencies found that 84% felt that abortion should be allowed when the woman's life is at risk, 79% felt that abortion should be allowed whenever the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, 78% felt that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, 71% felt that abortion should be allowed where the woman is suicidal as a result of the pregnancy (the X case result), 70% felt that abortion should be allowed when the woman's health is at risk, and 37% felt that abortion should be provided when a woman deems it to be in her best interest.
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.
Ah, maternal mortality, the last desperate club in the pro-life bag of tricks. Maternal mortality is a bad argument for two reasons: a) because Ireland's MMR score isn't that great and b) because there is no connection between MMR and abortion laws.
Ireland has been a relatively safe place in the past. Not so much anymore though. Over the last 10 years or so the number of maternal deaths has been increasing. This has already had an impact on our maternal mortality ratio (MMR). The latest figures from the WHO cover the period to the end of 2013. These figures show that Ireland now has a maternal mortality ratio (number of deaths per 1000 pregancies) of 9. This puts Ireland in joint 31st place with France and Malta. It is also a 33% increase since 1990 when MMR began to be monitored. A pregnant woman in Ireland now has a 1 in 5500 chance of dying while pregnant. This is compared with the now safest country in the world, Belarus where a woman has only a 1 in 45,200 chance of dying.
It is also representative of a relatively recent trend. Back in 2008, Ireland had managed to significantly lower its 1990 MMR figure and was 2nd in the world with an MMR of just 2. However in 2010 it slipped to 11th place and is now in 31st place.
There is no correlation between abortion laws and MMR. If you look at the top three countries on the list you've got:
Belarus - MMR 1 - Abortion available on request
Israel - MMR 2- Abortion legal for selected reasons
Poland - MMR 3 - Abortion available for health, criminal and foetal abnormality reasons.
We've got a reasonably low MMR because we're a western country with a developed economy and an advanced healthcare system. Not because of our abortion laws.
Furthermore when you say: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.
you're being both dishonest and wrong.
France had 68 maternal deaths in 2013, it's true. However, France's MMR score is 9, the same as ours, with the same range (5-13). The reason France has more maternal deaths is because it's got more people. In fact, a pregnant woman in France stands a better chance of not dying than here. In France the chances of a pregnant woman dying is 1 in 6100. Here it's just 1 in 5500. You really should try to avoid cherry picking data to make your point.
Ireland is not one of the safest countries to be pregant in and hasn't been for a while.0 -
It could be I suppose... you'd have to ask the various Justices if they'd agree with you though? Maybe dough that's been proven rather than just basic dough would be closer. Though both are probably a bit of a stretch as analogies go... isn't a bun more usual than bread in that regard? All in all probably just proving the limits of relying on analogies perhaps.
I think it's a fairly good analogy, dough (even when proven) requires being baked to become bread. An embryo requires gestation to become a baby. When exactly during this process does one become the other is difficult to define, much like trying to define the exact point that someone becomes 'old'.
To call an embryo a 'child' is like calling a piece of dough 'bread' or an egg a 'chick'.
And if the embryo is considered a child by Irish law, then why does the mother not receive Child Benefit payments until the month of birth? The mother receives no benefits or entitlements towards raising the child, only assistance with being pregnant.0 -
Advertisement
-
It would be tremendously helpful, cattolico, if people such as yourself avoided bringing up the same old tired debunked arguments in debates like these.
You can spin abortion every way you like. The Child is still a child, its a child at 280 days, 260 days, 250 days etc..
People as myself are not going to be railroaded into removing human rights enshrined in our constitution by people like you.
NOBODY ,, NOBODY is disputing the necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. that already happen in Ireland. We don't need to amend our constitution to give the best medical care to mothers.0 -
-
You can spin abortion every way you like. The Child is still a child, its a child at 280 days, 260 days, 250 days etc..
People as myself are not going to be railroaded into removing human rights enshrined in our constitution by people like you.
NOBODY ,, NOBODY is disputing the necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. that already happen in Ireland. We don't need to amend our constitution to give the best medical care to mothers.
What if it's the mental health of a 14 year old rape victim? You agree she should be allowed an abortion?0 -
You can spin abortion every way you like. The Child is still a child, its a child at 280 days, 260 days, 250 days etc..
People as myself are not going to be railroaded into removing human rights enshrined in our constitution by people like you.
NOBODY ,, NOBODY is disputing the necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. that already happen in Ireland. We don't need to amend our constitution to give the best medical care to mothers.
Congratulations on avoiding the content of the post.0 -
Congratulations on avoiding the content of the post.
I didn't ignore most of the post... for example saying "87% would support legislation to provide abortion where the woman's life was in danger for reasons other than threat of suicide" means that 13% would sit back and let the mother die?? That is crazy. No poll can allow a mother to die, no legislation can allow a mother do die.
The push of the pro-abortion side is the blur the lines. To make people think we don't have terminations already in Ireland. To make people think there are higher risks here for pregnant women. When that is a lie.0 -
Shown to be factually correct, actually.To make people think there are higher risks here for pregnant women. When that is a lie.0 -
Who are these pro-abortion people? Genuine question. I am not sure I know anyone that is pro-abortion. I know plenty of people that are pro-choice, myself included, but I genuinely don't know anyone that is pro-abortion.
The push of the pro-abortion side is the blur the lines.
I appreciate that this is probably a distinction that you will refuse to accept, as you have refused to in your previous guises, but it is a genuine distinction all the same. Most people that have a fairly solid grip on reality realise that things are not all black and white, there is a significant amount of grey. Those same people also realise that just because they don't particularly like something, and might not want to avail of it themselves, doesn't mean, necessarily, that it shouldn't be allowed.
I am not a fan of abortion, I am not pro-abortion. My preference would be that there was never an abortion. But, because I inhabit the real world and not some strange fantasy land, I can appreciate that whilst I might not like abortions and whilst I would prefer there was no need for them, for some people they are the right move and it is absolutely correct that they are available.
To say I, and most of the other people who's arguments you are ignoring, am pro-abortion is dishonest in the extreme. This has been pointed out to you and you previous guises many times and still you trot it out. But then it seems that dishonesty frequently seems to go hand in hand with religion for some.
MrP0 -
I didn't ignore most of the post... for example saying "87% would support legislation to provide abortion where the woman's life was in danger for reasons other than threat of suicide" means that 13% would sit back and let the mother die?? That is crazy. No poll can allow a mother to die, no legislation can allow a mother do die.
The push of the pro-abortion side is the blur the lines. To make people think we don't have terminations already in Ireland. To make people think there are higher risks here for pregnant women. When that is a lie.
That's some fine irony.
Can a woman pregnant due to incest or rape have an abortion? No.
Can a woman carry a foetus diagnosed with FFA have an abortion? No.
Can a woman have an abortion to continue with a medical treatment? No.
Can a woman who is pregnant as a result of a contraceptive failure have an abortion? No.
Can women who can't afford to travel abroad have an abortion? No.
Can a woman avail of the abortion pill (which is approved by the WHO) without fear of a 14 year prison sentence? No.
Being pregnant is more of a risk to a womans health than not being pregnant.
Do feel free to explain how any that is a "lie".If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
That's some fine irony.
Can a woman pregnant due to incest or rape have an abortion? No.
Can a woman carry a foetus diagnosed with FFA have an abortion? No.
Can a woman have an abortion to continue with a medical treatment? No.
Can a woman who is pregnant as a result of a contraceptive failure have an abortion? No.
Can women who can't afford to travel abroad have an abortion? No.
Can a woman avail of the abortion pill (which is approved by the WHO) without fear of a 14 year prison sentence? No.
Being pregnant is more of a risk to a womans health than not being pregnant.
Do feel free to explain how any that is a "lie".
So its abortion in demand. Right?0 -
No, 'abortion on demand' is "I want an abortion because I feel like it," not "I'm undergoing chemotherapy and don't want to be pregnant for it"0
-
Advertisement
-
So its abortion in demand. Right?
I do like how you reframed the post to dismiss all that I listed and to mislead the casual reader to believe that you don't oppose what I listed.
Is it "abortion on demand" to allow a woman with a foetus diagnosed with a FFA?
Or a 12-year old girl access to abortion? Or a woman who has been raped?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
I'm sure you do. Whether the various Justices do would be a matter for their own opinion though. Personally, I tend to think analogies often cause people to think 'exactly the same as' instead of 'like' which then leads to errors in fact. So whilst an unborn child may be, to some points of view 'like' unbaked bread, it would be a mistake to treat it as if it were unbaked bread. Because it isn't.I think it's a fairly good analogy, dough (even when proven) requires being baked to become bread. An embryo requires gestation to become a baby. When exactly during this process does one become the other is difficult to define, much like trying to define the exact point that someone becomes 'old'.
Sure. But what's 'like' something isn't the same as what 'is' something. You may think no one ought to call an embryo an unborn child, because that's like something, but it doesn't change that an embryo is called an unborn child, and the term has sufficient currency as to be included in jurisprudence.To call an embryo a 'child' is like calling a piece of dough 'bread' or an egg a 'chick'.
Seriously? Is simply dropping the word 'unborn' supposed to make that an argument? Are children over the age of 15 who are not either in full-time education or capable of self-support by reason of long-term physical or mental disability not considered children by the State either, since mothers receive no Child Benefit for them? Or is it at all possible that Child Benefit simply isn't paid to mothers in respect of every person to whom the term child (or even unborn child) might be applied?And if the embryo is considered a child by Irish law, then why does the mother not receive Child Benefit payments until the month of birth? The mother receives no benefits or entitlements towards raising the child, only assistance with being pregnant.0 -
In 2007, scientists from the World Health Organisation carried out a massive, worldwide study of abortion – probably the most comprehensive research yet performed on the subject. In countries where it was legal at the time they collected official national data, and in countries where it was illegal they carried out interviews with local family planning experts, surveys of women in the area, and collected data from hospitals about women who had been admitted for abortion complications.
The research was peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world – research doesn’t get to The Lancet unless it stands up to intense scrutiny from global experts. And the study proved that criminalizing abortion does not prevent it happening. It wasn’t the first time research had found that when women need abortions they have them, regardless of the law. But this research has also shown that rates of abortion are not lower in countries where it’s illegal – in fact, the lowest rates of abortion are in countries where it is most legal and available. Not only do anti-choice laws fail to prevent abortions, they don’t even reduce them.
But here’s what they do: they put women in danger. Research has proven again and again what should be intuitive – where abortion is legal it is safe, and where it is illegal it is unsafe. 14.5% of global maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortions, and almost all of these deaths happen in countries with restrictive laws. In South Africa, abortion-related deaths fell by 91% when it became legal.
In Romania, abortion was abruptly criminalised in the sixties and abruptly decriminalised in the nineties, with correspondingly abrupt changes in deaths of pregnant women. Mortality rates shot up from 15 deaths per 100,000 to 140 per 100,000 in just a few short years when abortion became illegal – even though other maternal health services improved at the time – and dropped dramatically when safe abortion became legally available again.
Some people fear that, were abortion more acceptable, people would make the choice rashly, using “abortion as contraception.” The misogyny simmering beneath this argument is unmistakable – women can’t be trusted – and, as reported in the International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics this month, decriminalising abortion doesn’t increase abortion rates. In France and Spain, minor increases in abortions happened for two to three years after it was legalised, but this was probably explained by the fact that secret abortions are always underreported. Since then, rates have dropped, and Portugal, where abortion is legal and widely available, has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world.
Full articleIf you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
I'm sure you do. Whether the various Justices do would be a matter for their own opinion though. Personally, I tend to think analogies often cause people to think 'exactly the same as' instead of 'like' which then leads to errors in fact. So whilst an unborn child may be, to some points of view 'like' unbaked bread, it would be a mistake to treat it as if it were unbaked bread. Because it isn't.
Sure. But what's 'like' something isn't the same as what 'is' something. You may think no one ought to call an embryo an unborn child, because that's like something, but it doesn't change that an embryo is called an unborn child, and the term has sufficient currency as to be included in jurisprudence.
Can we not use analogies at all then?Seriously? Is simply dropping the word 'unborn' supposed to make that an argument? Are children over the age of 15 who are not either in full-time education or capable of self-support by reason of long-term physical or mental disability not considered children by the State either, since mothers receive no Child Benefit for them? Or is it at all possible that Child Benefit simply isn't paid to mothers in respect of every person to whom the term child (or even unborn child) might be applied?
A child "over the age of 15 who [is] not either in full-time education or capable of self-support by reason of long-term physical or mental disability" is legally capable of working a 35-40 hour job to help support themselves or their family.0 -
You can spin abortion every way you like.
It's not my intention to spin anything. I simply have an aversion to bad arguments, like the ones you have put forward thus far in this thread.The Child is still a child, its a child at 280 days, 260 days, 250 days etc..
Really? In what way is a "child" at say 10 days the same as at 280 days? What characteristics does a "child" at 10 days share with one at 280 days that makes them equivalent?People as myself are not going to be railroaded into removing human rights enshrined in our constitution by people like you.
I'm not here to railroad anyone. You on the other hand have entered into a public forum and taken part in a discussion thread on abortion using arguments which are logically unsupportable, factually wrong and downright dishonest. When these arguments are then shown to be without foundation, instead of responding substantively to the rebuttals you instead respond with cheap, emotive backhanders. So who's trying to railroad here really?NOBODY ,, NOBODY is disputing the necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. that already happen in Ireland. We don't need to amend our constitution to give the best medical care to mothers.
I'm not sure exactly what part of my post you're responding to here. Your last post consisted of three arguments namely:
That the 1948 Declaration gives protection to the unborn (which it doesn't).
That the weight of public opinion is on the pro-life side (which it isn't)
That Ireland is one of the best countries to be pregnant due its low MMR (which is both irrelevant and wrong).
At no point did I discuss abortion where it was medically necessary. However, since you bring it up, while women whose life is in danger are adequately cared for under our current legal system, what about those who become pregnant due to a criminal act (rape/incest)? What about those women who experience a fatal foetal abnormality? What about women whose continuing health may be endangered without an abortion (cancer)? The law doesn't cover any of these situations adequately and it should.I didn't ignore most of the post... for example saying "87% would support legislation to provide abortion where the woman's life was in danger for reasons other than threat of suicide" means that 13% would sit back and let the mother die?? That is crazy. No poll can allow a mother to die, no legislation can allow a mother do die.
You absolutely ignored most of the post. You didn't acknowledge that the 1948 doesn't actually say what you claimed it said and neither did you acknowledge that your two claims about Ireland and its MMR score are irrelevant and wrong.
Now, as for the opinion polls. The opinion polls were posted to show that contrary to Cora Sherlock's claim, the weight of public opinion is not in favour of a pro-life position. While there are naturally differing degrees of support for different restrictions, on average only 8% of people polled support the kind of system that you and Cora Sherlock are advocating.The push of the pro-abortion side is the blur the lines. To make people think we don't have terminations already in Ireland. To make people think there are higher risks here for pregnant women. When that is a lie.
Firstly, I'm not pro-abortion. I don't think anyone on the pro-choice side is pro-abortion. I'm not even sure I would categorise myself as pro-choice (for some complex reasons too esoteric to get into here).
Secondly, I'm not the one trying to blur the lines. There is a debate to be had here over what Nick Park has referred to as the excluded middle. That's where the real discussion is. However, bad arguments such as yours muddy the waters and block any real progress in the discussion so I decided to inject a few facts.
Finally, the risks for pregant women here are higher, contrary to what you have claimed in previous posts. The chances of a pregnant woman dying in Ireland is 1 in 5500. This compares to the UK with 1 in 6900 and France with 1 in 6100, for example. However, the real point which you so completely failed to grasp is that there is no consistent correlation between the restrictiveness of a country's abortion laws and the maternal mortality rate. Delirium has posted a comprehensive article on this topic this morning which I suggest you read.0 -
Sure we can. But we oughtn't to make the mistake of thinking analogies can in some way refute facts; so saying the term 'unborn child' is like the term 'unbaked bread' has no real bearing on the fact that Irish jurisprudence does refer to the 'unborn child', and so is contrary to Kevs assertion there is no child involved in an abortion at least in the view of the Irish courts.Can we not use analogies at all then?
No doubt. But they're still legally a child for whom a mother does not receive Child Benefit, are they not? So we can't reasonably say that the provision of Child Benefit is a defining characteristic of a child.A child "over the age of 15 who [is] not either in full-time education or capable of self-support by reason of long-term physical or mental disability" is legally capable of working a 35-40 hour job to help support themselves or their family.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,490 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26410
Posted this in atheist forum, but its also suitable here.
Be interested to know posters views on Alive in this forum. Do you actually agree with the "paper" raghttp://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/11/03/godwins-law-alive-and-well/Catholic Church paper “Alive!” compares journalists to Auschwitz staff #repealthe8th
0 -
Sure we can. But we oughtn't to make the mistake of thinking analogies can in some way refute facts; so saying the term 'unborn child' is like the term 'unbaked bread' has no real bearing on the fact that Irish jurisprudence does refer to the 'unborn child', and so is contrary to Kevs assertion there is no child involved in an abortion at least in the view of the Irish courts.
And at no point was I trying to refute that Irish jurisprudence uses the term, I was merely commenting, with the use of an analogy, on how it seems to me like an incorrect term to use.No doubt. But they're still legally a child for whom a mother does not receive Child Benefit, are they not? So we can't reasonably say that the provision of Child Benefit is a defining characteristic of a child.
And I also at no point argued that receiving Child Benefit is a defining characteristic of anything. A child over the age of 15 is capable of full-time employment and therefore has the potential to provide whatever financial assistance (and more) that the government would normally provide. An unborn child is not, so why would a pregnant mother not receive Child Benefit towards the unborn child if it is considered a child by the State?
To be clear, I am not trying to spring a "gotcha!" I find it genuinely interesting and it could have a very simple explanation. If you have one then please share.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
No doubt. But they're still legally a child for whom a mother does not receive Child Benefit, are they not? So we can't reasonably say that the provision of Child Benefit is a defining characteristic of a child.
The state does provide benefits to mothers here. They get free maternity care (which costs thousands in some countries).0
Advertisement