Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)
Options
Comments
-
The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »You are suggesting that most people would abort if they knew the child has DS then, rather than most people who would abort take the test?
Is there something preventing the diagnosed from being tested before birth? I know a woman who was in her 40s decided not to take the test as it wouldnt have mattered to her.
I'm sorry, but neither of your questions seem to make sense.
The only way people would know the child has DS is if they have had the test.
'The diagnosed' refers to those who have already taken the test and discovered that the baby does have DS.
Like the woman you know, there are a considerable number of parents who choose not to take the test since they would not consider an abortion anyway and see no need to know beforehand. This explains why oldrnwiser made the mistake with the percentage.0 -
Fascinating case but here's the perspective on that:"Jennifer Jorgensen, the Long Island, New York, woman who was convicted of manslaughter in the 2008 death of her six-day-old daughter, has won her appeal by arguing that her daughter was not yet a person."
This is where the road leads when you remove humans rights from the unborn child.
"the Court of Appeals, in a 5-1 ruling, said the state Legislature didn't intend to hold a pregnant woman responsible for such harmful conduct to herself or her fetus unless it's intentional." This is a similar response to say, how most Irish judges approach the law. Eddie Halvey, look him up. He drove roaring drunk, encountered another vehicle, Halvey ploughed into the back of their vehicle, triggering a wreck which killed a kid. He got a suspended sentence of several months (not years) and no jail time, just a 7 year driving ban.
The laws in New York state would not have allowed a prosecution, under the letter and spirit,
This equally applies in situations where there is a failed termination: eg. you take the morning after pill, which ultimately still results in a pregnancy. On carrying the baby to term it is discovered that birth defects will result in this baby living only a few hours or days - then it dies. Is the mother charged with murder in the first degree?
It highlights that there is a very important distinction between your personhood before and after birth. I understand that pro-lifers do view abortion as murder. At the same time, in countries where abortion is legalized for whichever reason, that excludes the possibility of being charged with murder. Furthermore, how many Irish women have been charged with murder, in the course of getting illegal abortions?"Catholic church in the US say that if you aren't born then you aren't a person"
No the Catholic Church has NEVER said that the unborn is not a person.
Maybe you missed Pope Francis's speech to congress.
“The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development,”
Then I would assume one of the agenda of the Pope's recent visit was to meet with the Catholic Church's own representatives in the US to clarify that matter. Either way, the fact remains that the church in the US is as Catholic as the church in Ireland, and they argued strongly in the affirmative that a fetus is not a person.0 -
In the case of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child we don't need to rely on the preamble to see what the intentions of the drafters were. We have the working papers available which show the deliberations which went in to deciding the wording. As far as personhood goes, the Convention is deliberately vague and does not take a position on personhood. The Convention expressly worded the Convention to be ambiguous so that as many countries as possible would ratify the treaty. The original text of Article 1 was far less ambiguous:
"According to the present Convention a child is every human being from the moment of his birth to the age of 18 unless, under the laws of his state, he has attained his age of majority earlier."
The Convention sought to allow each country to interpret the terms of the Convention in accordance with their own laws and so the wording was made more ambiguous.
Right, so what you're saying is that there was a proposal put before the UN that would, in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, specifically limit the human rights of a child to exclude the unborn.
That would have supported the view of certain "pro-choice" posters here who argue that human rights start at birth.
The UN, however, rejected that view, preferring to leave the wording in a way that permitted member countries to carry out abortions, but also refused to rule the unborn out of the human rights picture. Indeed, they added a preamble, which is printed alongside the text of the Declaration on the UN human rights website, stating that children should be afforded legal protection prior to birth.
So, even if posters here say they have told us "dozens of times" that human rights for children only start at birth, the UN has in fact voted to reject that view, and their intention in framing the Declaration on the Rights of the Child was that it should include, at least to some extent, legal protection for the unborn.
That proves my point, that an untrue statement (that human rights only begin at birth) still remains an untrue statement to matter how many times it is repeated.0 -
Can you provide a source for that number?
The 95% abortion rate in the UK and the US for unborn babies diagnosed with Downs Syndrome?
You yourself linked to a UK government document that produces a 92% abortion rate: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314006/data_matching_and_under_reporting_HSA4s_final_230514.pdf
I have already, in a previous post, provided links revealing a 95% rate in Australia, and an 88% rate Europewide.
In the US the rate appears to be 92%. http://nypost.com/2011/11/13/the-end-of-down-syndrome/
I apologise for stating the figure as 95% for the UK and the US when it is actually 92% for both countries. I was posting while I was on the road and cited the figures from memory - always a dangerous thing to do on boards.ie
Still, I think my point remains, that there are a very small percentage of cases (incest, rape, babies that will be born with no brains) where there is considerable public support for allowing abortion. However, there is a real fear that simply removing the Equality of Life Amendment from the Constitution will result in virtual abortion on demand, which the majority of the public apparently do not support. Such a step would remove Constitutional protection for the right to life of children with Down Syndrome and similar conditions that are perfectly compatible with living a happy and productive life. These children deserve Birth Equality. To deny them such is a discriminatory violation of human rights.0 -
The 95% abortion rate in the UK and the US for unborn babies diagnosed with Downs Syndrome?
You yourself linked to a UK government document that produces a 92% abortion rate: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314006/data_matching_and_under_reporting_HSA4s_final_230514.pdf
Can you quote the post where I linked to that? I don't recall doing so.
Also can you back up the the >99% you state here?And when arguing for abortion, it's nearly always some extreme case where a baby has no brain, or the mother has been raped. Rarely are the >99% of abortions discussed where the baby should be able to live a fulfilling life and hasn't committed the crime of having a rapist as a dad.0 -
Advertisement
-
Still, I think my point remains, that there are a very small percentage of cases (incest, rape, babies that will be born with no brains) where there is considerable public support for allowing abortion. However, there is a real fear that simply removing the Equality of Life Amendment from the Constitution will result in virtual abortion on demand, which the majority of the public apparently do not support. Such a step would remove Constitutional protection for the right to life of children with Down Syndrome and similar that are perfectly compatible with living a happy and productive life. These children deserve Birth Equality. To deny them such is a discriminatory violation of human rights.
If by birth equality you mean an equal right to birth, what about babies created through rape - what have they done wrong not to deserve the right to birth?
(And assuming such a right even exists - because if it does, does it apply to IVF embryos also? If not why not? What exactly is this right based on? When does it begin, and why?)0 -
If by birth equality you mean an equal right to birth, what about babies created through rape - what have they done wrong not to deserve the right to birth?
I don't think that they have done anything wrong. We don't execute rapists in this country, so it seems strange that we kill unborn children because their father was a rapist.
However, I recognise that a substantial minority (43 percent of the population according to a poll in today's Irish Times) are in support of allowing abortion in such cases and so there is an obvious need for a debate.
I appreciate this is a long thread, and it's hard to read all the posts, but I have already suggested that, for most Irish people, they don't take either dogmatic extreme about when personhood begins (at conception versus at birth). Most people, I think, see the unborn child achieving personhood at some stage during pregnancy. So I don't think that the majority would see Birth Equality as including IVF embryos.(And assuming such a right even exists - because if it does, does it apply to IVF embryos also? If not why not? What exactly is this right based on? When does it begin, and why?)0 -
What about your view on birth equality Nick? Do you think frozen embryos are denied any rights?0
-
Can you quote the post where I linked to that? I don't recall doing so.
Post number 2267. You linked to this https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314006/data_matching_and_under_reporting_HSA4s_final_230514.pdf
Your link, at the top of page 9, provides a chart stating that, of the 1178 unborn babies who were diagnosed as having Down Syndrome, 994 were 'terminated'. (Last night my calculator worked it out as 92% - but today it's coming out as just under 85% - I either need a new calculator or need to retake my maths O level).
The 92% figure is from an NHS website: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/11November/Pages/DownssyndromeQA.aspxcument"]http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/11November/Pages/DownssyndromeQA.aspxcument[/URL]Also can you back up the the >99% you state here?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
In the US.
0.03% of abortions due to incest.
0.3% due to rape.
0.5% fetal health issues.
Even if all the 'fetal health issues' were children that were going to be born with no brains (and we both know that they aren't, that stat includes children with DS or even cleft palates) that would still leave 99.17% of abortions performed for other reasons.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It seems incomprehensible in fact.I don't think that they have done anything wrong. We don't execute rapists in this country, so it seems strange that we kill unborn children because their father was a rapist.
Unless of course most people don't actually think that "unborn children" are the same as actual existing children. Then it all makes sense.
And how exactly would you see that debate going? Do you think you will be able to convince pregnant rape victims that they should keep the pregancy and make their rapist into a dad? Or are you just hoping to be able to convince enough of the rest of the country that what rape victims may want to do concerning their pregnancy doesn't matter as much as the need to bring more rapists' children into the world?However, I recognise that a substantial minority (43 percent of the population according to a poll in today's Irish Times) are in support of allowing abortion in such cases and so there is an obvious need for a debate.
I'm not asking you to speculate on what you think other people may believe, I'm asking what you think.I appreciate this is a long thread, and it's hard to read all the posts, but I have already suggested that, for most Irish people, they don't take either dogmatic extreme about when personhood begins (at conception versus at birth). Most people, I think, see the unborn child achieving personhood at some stage during pregnancy. So I don't think that the majority would see Birth Equality as including IVF embryos.
Is there some logic to this claim that a new person doesn't occur at conception, but does occur at implantation? What happens at implantation that makes this distinction pertinent?
Because I can see the argument for conception as the starting point for a new person (though I would disagree that this new entity has rights that could conflict with those of the woman inside whose body it is) but I can't see the logic that allows the embryo rights to stay within a woman who doesn't want it, but no rights to remain safely within a test tube or a freezer. Still less why this fertilized embryo should not have these "Birth Equality" rights you proclaim.
At what point do you think this right begins and why?0 -
No, you and oldrnwiser are both incorrect.
First of all, oldrnwiser has made the mistake of constructing a statistic by comparing the number of unborn babies diagnosed with DS with the number of babies born with DS. Sounds good, yes?
However, he/she has overlooked the fact that not all pregnant mothers take the diagnostic test. Therefore the numbers of children born with DS includes both diagnosed and undiagnosed antenatal cases.
Your own link, robdonn, if you read it carefully, not only demonstrates a massive underrecording of DS abortions, but actually reveals a very different statistic - that of 92% diagnosed cases aborted. There were 1178 cases of DS prediagnosed, of these 994 resulted in 'termination' while 184 were 'outcome unknown' (presumably carried to term.
You have made the mistake of accepting oldrnwiser's incorrect statistics and then, when you posted the link to the underreporting, amending his percentage instead of working the percentage out from your own link.
The figure of 92% is in line with other studies. The US National Library of Medicine cites a Europe-wide figure of 88% of all DS antenatal diagnoses resulting in abortion http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2344123/
In Australia the figure is 95% http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/the-chosen-ones-australias-shrinking-number-of-down-syndrome-kids/story-fnet08ui-1226598360762
OK, just to clarify here Nick.
You made two claims relating to Down's syndrome and abortion. The first claim is that:
"Furthermore, in countries where abortion is permitted, one of the main categories of babies aborted are those with Down Syndrome."
This is quite demonstrably false. On average each year in the UK, there are approximately 180-190,000 abortions. The average number each year of Down's syndrome abortions (allowing for the shortcomings in the data posted by robdonn) is about 1000. So it is false to claim that Down's syndrome is one of the main categories aborted.
Your second claim is that:
"And, in countries such as the US and the UK, where the disabled do not have the same constitutional protection as they do here, 95% of such babies are aborted."
Your claim as it is worded above is misleading. The claim that 95% of all babies who have Down's syndrome are aborted is false and has been demonstrated in my previous post (supported with robdonn's data). It would seem what you intended to claim is that 92% of all mothers who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome choose abortion. Those are two different claims however.Right, so what you're saying is that there was a proposal put before the UN that would, in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, specifically limit the human rights of a child to exclude the unborn.
That would have supported the view of certain "pro-choice" posters here who argue that human rights start at birth.
The UN, however, rejected that view, preferring to leave the wording in a way that permitted member countries to carry out abortions, but also refused to rule the unborn out of the human rights picture. Indeed, they added a preamble, which is printed alongside the text of the Declaration on the UN human rights website, stating that children should be afforded legal protection prior to birth.
So, even if posters here say they have told us "dozens of times" that human rights for children only start at birth, the UN has in fact voted to reject that view, and their intention in framing the Declaration on the Rights of the Child was that it should include, at least to some extent, legal protection for the unborn.
That proves my point, that an untrue statement (that human rights only begin at birth) still remains an untrue statement to matter how many times it is repeated.
OK, just to clarify again.
The original text of the Convention specified the child's rights as beginning from birth. However, during the deliberations the delegates felt that that wording was far too explicit and countries with pro-life justice systems (like Ireland) would not ratify the treaty if it remained like that. However, the delegates also didn't want to shift the position so far in the other direction that countries with more liberal abortion laws would also reject the convention. As a result the wording they chose was deliberately ambiguous so that a) as many countries as possible would ratify the treaty regardless of their laws on abortion and b) that the UN itself would not be viewed as taking a position one way or the other on the issue.
So the Convention is there to allow most countries to justify their laws on abortion with reference to it. However, in the context of this debate the Convention is useless since it doesn't take a position for or against any viewpoint.0 -
Post number 2267. You linked to this https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314006/data_matching_and_under_reporting_HSA4s_final_230514.pdf
Your link, at the top of page 9, provides a chart stating that, of the 1178 unborn babies who were diagnosed as having Down Syndrome, 994 were 'terminated'. (Last night my calculator worked it out as 92% - but today it's coming out as just under 85% - I either need a new calculator or need to retake my maths O level).
I did not post number 2267.0 -
-
-
Your second claim is that:
"And, in countries such as the US and the UK, where the disabled do not have the same constitutional protection as they do here, 95% of such babies are aborted."
Your claim as it is worded above is misleading. The claim that 95% of all babies who have Down's syndrome are aborted is false and has been demonstrated in my previous post (supported with robdonn's data). It would seem what you intended to claim is that 92% of all mothers who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome choose abortion. Those are two different claims however.
Oh dear. I have always seen you as one of the more honest posters here, so I'm really hoping that your editing out of the preceding sentence from my quote was accidental and innocent. You start my quote with a sentence that starts with a conjunction (my old English teacher would be appalled). The conjunction clearly links it to the preceding sentence so my quotation read as follows.
"The test for this condition is normally carried out between 10 and 14 weeks -an area where a large number of both religious and nonreligious people believe we are well into the territory of personhood. And, in countries such as the US and the UK, where the disabled do not have the same constitutional protection as they do here, 95% of such babies are aborted."
In other words, I was clearly saying that that 95% of those who had been diagnosed are aborted. As I've already acknowledged, the figure is actually 92%, not 95%.0 -
Oh dear. I have always seen you as one of the more honest posters here, so I'm really hoping that your editing out of the preceding sentence from my quote was accidental and innocent. You start my quote with a sentence that starts with a conjunction (my old English teacher would be appalled). The conjunction clearly links it to the preceding sentence so my quotation read as follows.
"The test for this condition is normally carried out between 10 and 14 weeks -an area where a large number of both religious and nonreligious people believe we are well into the territory of personhood. And, in countries such as the US and the UK, where the disabled do not have the same constitutional protection as they do here, 95% of such babies are aborted."
In other words, I was clearly saying that that 95% of those who had been diagnosed are aborted. As I've already acknowledged, the figure is actually 92%, not 95%.
Thanks for the clarification Nick. I apologise for taking you up wrong but the way I parsed that sentence seemed to me like you were claiming that 95% of all Down's cases are aborted. I see where you're coming from now.
However, since you brought up Down's as a topic, I think it is important to note that Down's is a bit of a red herring in the context of this overall debate. You see, we know that the overwhelming majority of abortions (~92%) happen at a point before which it is fruitless to speak of personhood). We also know that there are about 2.5% of cases where abortions are performed for legitimate medical reasons. So there are about 5% of cases left which are performed on elective grounds in the timeframe of 12-20 weeks where personhood ought to be considered. These are the ones that should be the focus of the debate rather than getting tied up in knots discussing cases that are either irrelevant or unrepresentative.0 -
Thanks for the clarification Nick. I apologise for taking you up wrong but the way I parsed that sentence seemed to me like you were claiming that 95% of all Down's cases are aborted. I see where you're coming from now.
While we're having this group-hug, it is worth mentioning that it is hard to strike a balance in this forum.
In the past I have over-elaborated posts by trying to foresee and forestall every conceivable way that somebody could misunderstands my words. Unfortunately this led certain posters (not the Christian ones) to mock me for my verbosity.
So I try to be more brief (also, due to 3 jobs and publishers' deadlines on the horizon, I haven't the time to respond in massive detail).
I had, obviously mistakenly, assumed that in referring to a discriminatory use of abortion against a group (those with DS), that it would be understood that I was referring to cases where people actually knew that DS was involved. I had reasoned that treatment of a person can hardly be discriminatory if you are totally ignorant that they bear the characteristic that is allegedly being discriminated against.However, since you brought up Down's as a topic, I think it is important to note that Down's is a bit of a red herring in the context of this overall debate. You see, we know that the overwhelming majority of abortions (~92%) happen at a point before which it is fruitless to speak of personhood). We also know that there are about 2.5% of cases where abortions are performed for legitimate medical reasons. So there are about 5% of cases left which are performed on elective grounds in the timeframe of 12-20 weeks where personhood ought to be considered. These are the ones that should be the focus of the debate rather than getting tied up in knots discussing cases that are either irrelevant or unrepresentative.
I don't think it is a red herring. Removing the Constitutional Protection for unborn children with DS is, in my opinion, unnecessary. The test for DS is normally carried out between 10 and 14 weeks. I understand that most families take a bit of time to consider the issue, rather than having an abortion the same day as receiving the diagnosis. So it seems fair to assume that the majority of discriminatory abortions of children with DS occur within your timeframe of 12-20 weeks (some are even later).
Btw, I am not convinced at all personhood should only be considered after 12 weeks - but that is another issue.0 -
I didn't ask your religion.
I had understood that this was a discussion forum, where we are free to add information to our responses that we feel is relevant. I don't think that boards.ie provides this service to us so you can conduct an interrogation whereby you dictate how I answer you.
I didn't tell you my religion. I did, however, point out that as a non-Catholic I have no dogmatic reason to assume that personhood commences at conception/implantation. Nor, since I don't hold to a dogmatic extreme pro-abortion position, do I assume that personhood commences at birth. As I've already stated in an earlier post, my own inclination is to err on the side of caution, I would rather have a law that prohibits abortions too early even if it turns out that includes some non-persons, than have a law that aborts people because the date was set too late.
History tells us that, in determining personhood, we have an awful tendency to do so to suit our own personal benefit rather than out of a genuine concern for others (ie as when those who wanted to continue to profit from slavery tried to argue that blacks were not quite full persons).What rights to birth equality should frozen embryos have?
I thought I had answered this already. Which part of "I don't know" is causing the confusion?
It is perfectly normal and reasonable to promote a moral or ethical principle, even to the extent of advocating legal measures, without necessarily determining the precise definition of those affected to the nth degree. I can quite easily show you other areas we do this. I have refrained from doing so in this post since I don't want some eejit (quite incorrectly) accusing me of arguing from analogy.0 -
The problem (well, one of the problems*) with your analogy with slavery is that your claim to err on the side of caution "just in case "embryos turn into people earlier than you had thought necessarily removes a right to control over their own bodies from actual women over whom there is no doubt whatsoever.I had understood that this was a discussion forum, where we are free to add information to our responses that we feel is relevant. I don't think that boards.ie provides this service to us so you can conduct an interrogation whereby you dictate how I answer you.
I didn't tell you my religion. I did, however, point out that as a non-Catholic I have no dogmatic reason to assume that personhood commences at conception/implantation. Nor, since I don't hold to a dogmatic extreme pro-abortion position, do I assume that personhood commences at birth. As I've already stated in an earlier post, my own inclination is to err on the side of caution, I would rather have a law that prohibits abortions too early even if it turns out that includes some non-persons, than have a law that aborts people because the date was set too late.
History tells us that, in determining personhood, we have an awful tendency to do so to suit our own personal benefit rather than out of a genuine concern for others (ie as when those who wanted to continue to profit from slavery tried to argue that blacks were not quite full persons).
I thought I had answered this already. Which part of "I don't know" is causing the confusion?
It is perfectly normal and reasonable to promote a moral or ethical principle, even to the extent of advocating legal measures, without necessarily determining the precise definition of those affected to the nth degree. I can quite easily show you other areas we do this. I have refrained from doing so in this post since I don't want some eejit (quite incorrectly) accusing me of arguing from analogy.
In other words you are giving rights to possible people only by removing equally essential rights from actual ones.
That's very different from your claim about slavery - which by the way is also about a right to control over one's own body. Why is women's right to their bodies less important than slaves' rights? Are women less important than slaves?
* The other big problem with that comparison is that it's just not true that slaves were generally considered as non-people anyway - they were for example tried and punished for crimes, unlike animals or inanimate objects.
So it's obvious that slavers knew well that their chattels were people, since on some cases they treated them and such and in others it suited their argument at the time - just like the fact that travelling for an abortion doesn't appear to "count" as murder in the eyes of forced birthers. The inconsistency in both cases shows the weakness of the argument.0 -
Advertisement
-
The problem (well, one of the problems*) with your analogy with slavery is that your claim to err on the side of caution "just in case "embryos turn into people earlier than you had thought necessarily removes a right to control over their own bodies from actual women over whom there is no doubt whatsoever.
In other words you are giving rights to possible people only by removing equally essential rights from actual ones.
That's very different from your claim about slavery - which by the way is also about a right to control over one's own body. Why is women's right to their bodies less important than slaves' rights? Are women less important than slaves?
There is no human right to abortion (as quoted to me recently by a former Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission's Human Rights Enquiry).
The right to control our own bodies is not unlimited or absolute. That is why drink driving is illegal. You do not have the right to put as much alcohol as you want into your own body and then drive. The justification for this restriction of your bodily rights is that you might hurt somebody else.
If a mother and her baby were shipwrecked, and the mother was well capable of breast-feeding her child but refused to do so, should she be prosecuted if the child dies? At what point does a duty of parental care override the right to say, "it's my body, my breast and my milk. To hell with the baby?" We might also ponder the ethical dilemma if a nursing mother was shipwrecked with someone else's baby and refused to feed it.
My point about slavery was very simple. It was that our assessments about the personhood of others tends to be selfish rather than altruistic.
I personally would see the danger that some people are denied the right to do whatever they want with their own body to be a lesser evil than the danger that an innocent person, who lacks the power to do what they want with their own body, might be killed.
Better indeed to err on the side of caution.0 -
FYI. There is no right to drive. There is a right (tested in court) to the means to control one's own fertility. It comes under the right to privacy. Driving cannot possibly be compared to that.There is no human right to abortion (as quoted to me recently by a former Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission's Human Rights Enquiry).
The right to control our own bodies is not unlimited or absolute. That is why drink driving is illegal. You do not have the right to put as much alcohol as you want into your own body and then drive. The justification for this restriction of your bodily rights is that you might hurt somebody else.
But that isn't about a possible baby, it's about an actual one. Your comparison there would be if someone thought, without there being any actual proof, that this woman might have had a baby which she might have refused to feed.If a mother and her baby were shipwrecked, and the mother was well capable of breast-feeding her child but refused to do so, should she be prosecuted if the child dies? At what point does a duty of parental care override the right to say, "it's my body, my breast and my milk. To hell with the baby?" We might also ponder the ethical dilemma if a nursing mother was shipwrecked with someone else's baby and refused to feed it.
Would your precautionary approach have require punishing the woman "just in case"?
Oddly enough, one of the very few regularly-demonstrated exceptions to that tends to be the mother-child (and to a much lesser extent, father-child) relationship. Mothers sacrificing their lives for their children is not that unusual in all societies. Yet your claim is that this very relationship is - almost uniquely - one where the very worst assumptions are the legal default situation.My point about slavery was very simple. It was that our assessments about the personhood of others tends to be selfish rather than altruistic.
I think that looks like misogyny.
That's fine - as a choice of action, freely undertaken. It's absolutely not fine as a law to be enforced on someone else.I personally would see the danger that some people are denied the right to do whatever they want with their own body to be a lesser evil than the danger that an innocent person, who lacks the power to do what they want with their own body, might be killed.
Better indeed to err on the side of caution.
For something like the same reasons we can't lock someone up just in case they might be going to kill someone - we need some evidence before doing so.0 -
Interesting.. RTÉ /BBC NI Cross-Border Survey only 22% think abortion should be always available. Published in Irish times yesterday.0
-
-
The first time I read that link I thought the figures for the extremes (22% in favour of abortion on demand & 16% opposed to abortion in any circumstances) seemed about right. It's pretty clear that most people lie somewhere in between those extremes.
The article is written very confusingly in that it is unclear whether in each 'difficult' scenario it is giving a percentage of the whole sample, or the percentage of those who favour abortion (ie a percentage of the 86% who favour permitting abortion in at least some circumstances).
If these figures are correct (it's only one survey) that would, to me, suggest the following.
There is no public appetite for abortion on demand, and a Referendum seeking such would most likely fail.
In cases of rape, incest and possibly in cases fatal foetal abnormalities - the margins are small enough to swing one way or the other.
Where there is a risk to the mother's health (but not life) it would look an uphill task to pass such a Referendum.
Non-fatal foetal abnormalities (Downs Syndrom, Cleft Palates etc) would probably not pass a Referendum.
So where does it go from here?
It seems to me that the "pro-choice" side could realistically campaign for the Equality of Life amendment to be qualified in certain 'difficult' circumstances. Perhaps as a series of Referendum questions on one day's voting. (Harder to get them passed if bundled under one question).
Or they can go for broke, push for a Referendum to repeal the Amendment completely and try and make the debate all about babies with no brains and rape victims. That might work (if the pro-life side are particularly inept). However, if the electorate sense they are being conned, and that the "pro-choice" side are pulling a Clare Daly (pretending it's about the 'difficult' cases when it's really about abortion on demand) then the law will basically stay the way it is (unless the government decides that, after all, it can find wiggle room to loosen the legislation without a Referendum).
Then again. This poll might turn out to be wrong anyway. That has been known to happen.0 -
The first time I read that link I thought the figures for the extremes (22% in favour of abortion on demand & 16% opposed to abortion in any circumstances) seemed about right. It's pretty clear that most people lie somewhere in between those extremes.
Whats important is to clarify the abortions for 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.
Its immoral and wrong for ANYONE to be against treating a dying mother.
Everyone should be 100% unified about saving a pregnant Mother. It should never be up for debate.0 -
Why not? I can't expect to kill you even in order to save my life (push you in front of a car so I don't get hit for example) and not expect at least to be tried in court and possibly found guilty, even if there are mitigating circumstances.Whats important is to clarify the abortions for 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.
Its immoral and wrong for ANYONE to be against treating a dying mother.
Everyone should be 100% unified about saving a pregnant Mother. It should never be up for debate.
So why should it not even be "up for debate" when it comes to fetuses? Are you saying they arent really people or something?0 -
Advertisement
-
Why not? I can't expect to kill you even in order to save my life (push you in front of a car so I don't get hit for example) and not expect at least to be tried in court and possibly found guilty, even if there are mitigating circumstances.
So why should it not even be "up for debate" when it comes to fetuses? Are you saying they arent really people or something?
Nobody can except killing a child (if they believe the child is a person). What I am saying is that as Catholics you can't stop the necessary treatments to save a mother. For example a Mother has an ectopic pregnancy, then you need to operate and terminate the pregnancy. Don't you agree? you can't let both die.0
Advertisement