Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

cattolico

Just so we are clear.. Ending an ectopic pregnancy in the secular world is classed as an abortion or an abortive procedure. This is what confuses people. Yes it terminates the pregnancy, but is not a choice, the alternative is to let the Mother die, Which is wrong. The procedure must be done for the greater good (the Mothers life) otherwise both die. We can't be against this.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

Think about this a little more.

If you were a conjoined twin, then the situation becomes more complicated (Nature has then buggered up your ideal of absolute bodily freedom).

Often, with conjoined twins, one twin is more dependent on the other (for the sake of argument let's call them the 'stronger' and 'weaker' twins).

Now imagine a scenario where both twins will die unless they are separated. However, separation will cause the death of the weaker twin (relying on the organs of the stronger twin). Most ethicists would say it is better to lose one life than two.

However, if there is no danger to life in leaving them conjoined, then there are severe ethical difficulties in performing a separation that will inevitably result in the death of one life.

cattolico

Nick Park wrote: »

Think about this a little more.

If you were a conjoined twin, then the situation becomes more complicated (Nature has then buggered up your ideal of absolute bodily freedom).

Often, with conjoined twins, one twin is more dependent on the other (for the sake of argument let's call them the 'stronger' and 'weaker' twins).

Now imagine a scenario where both twins will die unless they are separated. However, separation will cause the death of the weaker twin (relying on the organs of the stronger twin). Most ethicists would say it is better to lose one life than two.

However, if there is no danger to life in leaving them conjoined, then there are severe ethical difficulties in performing a separation that will inevitably result in the death of one life.

EXACTLY... This is morally right. Its an extremely difficult situation. But you can't let both die. Its not in the realm of choice its. Its the sad reality life. You can't sit back an let both die, you need to treat the situation to save if possible both or at least one of the people.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

Think about this a little more.

If you were a conjoined twin, then the situation becomes more complicated (Nature has then buggered up your ideal of absolute bodily freedom).

Often, with conjoined twins, one twin is more dependent on the other (for the sake of argument let's call them the 'stronger' and 'weaker' twins).

Now imagine a scenario where both twins will die unless they are separated. However, separation will cause the death of the weaker twin (relying on the organs of the stronger twin). Most ethicists would say it is better to lose one life than
However, if there is no danger to life in leaving them conjoined, then there are severe ethical difficulties in performing a separation that will inevitably result in the death of one life.

You're assuming that the mother will live, and that the fetus can't live outside of her body.

Does that mean that if such a problem arises later in pregnancy, or during birth, then the doctors should weigh up which has more chance of living, and in some cases prioritize saving the baby instead of the mother?

Or do you think the mother should always have priority, even during the birth?

cattolico

volchitsa wrote: »

You're assuming that the mother will live, and that the fetus can't live outside of her body.

Does that mean that if such a problem arises later in pregnancy, or during birth, then the doctors should weigh up which has more chance of living, and in some cases prioritize saving the baby instead of the mother?

Or do you think the mother should always have priority, even during the birth?

Hi, You can terminate the pregnancy without killing the child. Exactly what they did last year with the Y case. Both lived, but the pregnancy was terminated.

volchitsa

cattolico wrote: »

Hi, You can terminate the pregnancy without killing the child. Exactly what they did last year with the Y case. Both lived, but the pregnancy was terminated.

In fact that child was born so prematurely that we can't even be sure he still is alive, never mind well. Should his life not have been given a bit more importance, and his mother made to wait a few more weeks to give him a better chance of life?

Though in fact I was really talking about times when that isn't a possibility, for example in a birth where's a straight choice between the mother and the child. That can happen, and has happened. So when you said nobody should ever refuse to save the mother, even if it means deliberately killing the child, what about where either have an equal chance, but not both?

Or where the mother is ill and possibly weaker than the child, who could be saved by neglecting her needs?

frag420

cattolico wrote: »

Hi, You can terminate the pregnancy without killing the child. Exactly what they did last year with the Y case. Both lived, but the pregnancy was terminated.

Yeah but at what stage in the pregnancy??

As has already been mentioned the vast majority of abortions occur <12 wks. Unless you think a 12 wk old baby foetus something is a something that can survive outside its host?

cattolico

frag420 wrote: »

Yeah but at what stage in the pregnancy??

As has already been mentioned the vast majority of abortions occur <12 wks. Unless you think a 12 wk old baby foetus something is a something that can survive outside its host?

If the child under 12 weeks is causing the mother to die, obviously you have to intervene. The intention of terminating was not to kill the child, its to save the mother, if they child could be saved, it would. These terminations are necessary and already carried out. They don't fall into the realm of choice, but the alternative is to let mother and child die.

This is what confuses the debate. We already have abortion procedures in Ireland to save a mothers life, we have had them before the 8th amendment. Saving a mothers life should not be up for debate. When I see polls saying X percentage of people don't agree with abortion under any circumstance then I think they don't understand the debate.

MrPudding

cattolico wrote: »

EXACTLY... This is morally right. Its an extremely difficult situation. But you can't let both die. Its not in the realm of choice its. Its the sad reality life. You can't sit back an let both die, you need to treat the situation to save if possible both or at least one of the people.

I'll just leave this here...

Of particular interest, I think is this:

"The Catholic church and other campaigners vigorously protested at the decision [...]". So cattolico, call yourself a catholic...?

MrP

MrPudding

cattolico wrote: »

EXACTLY... This is morally right. Its an extremely difficult situation. But you can't let both die. Its not in the realm of choice its. Its the sad reality life. You can't sit back an let both die, you need to treat the situation to save if possible both or at least one of the people.

volchitsa wrote: »

In fact that child was born so prematurely that we can't even be sure he still is alive, never mind well. Should his life not have been given a bit more importance, and his mother made to wait a few more weeks to give him a better chance of life?

Though in fact I was really talking about times when that isn't a possibility, for example in a birth where's a straight choice between the mother and the child. That can happen, and has happened. So when you said nobody should ever refuse to save the mother, even if it means deliberately killing the child, what about where either have an equal chance, but not both?

Or where the mother is ill and possibly weaker than the child, who could be saved by neglecting her needs?

Or what about when the mother is already dead... Why don't we just keep the corpse on life support? Surely if the mother is already dead the rights of the "child" must reign supreme. No...?

MrP

lazygal

cattolico wrote: »

If the child under 12 weeks is causing the mother to die, obviously you have to intervene. The intention of terminating was not to kill the child, its to save the mother, if they child could be saved, it would. These terminations are necessary and already carried out. They don't fall into the realm of choice, but the alternative is to let mother and child die.

This is what confuses the debate. We already have abortion procedures in Ireland to save a mothers life, we have had them before the 8th amendment. Saving a mothers life should not be up for debate. When I see polls saying X percentage of people don't agree with abortion under any circumstance then I think they don't understand the debate.

So there's actually no right to life for a foetus because a woman's life is always more important. What's the point of the eighth amendment then, if women can kill the unborn elsewhere and the rights of the foetus aren't as important as those of the woman?

cattolico

lazygal wrote: »

So there's actually no right to life for a foetus because a woman's life is always more important. What's the point of the eighth amendment then, if women can kill the unborn elsewhere and the rights of the foetus aren't as important as those of the woman?

Elsewhere you mean in another country with different laws? There is a right to life of the unborn, but there is also a right to life of the Mother.

Removing the 8th amendment would open the door to on demand abortion.

MrPudding

cattolico wrote: »

Elsewhere you mean in another country with different laws? There is a right to life of the unborn, but there is also a right to life of the Mother.

Removing the 8th amendment would open the door to on demand abortion.

So, have you rethought your position on separating conjoined twins now that I have pointed out proper catholics don't support separation?

MrP

cattolico

MrPudding wrote: »

So, have you rethought your position on separating conjoined twins now that I have pointed out proper catholics don't support separation?

MrP

If conjoined twins are dying, you need to do whatever is possible to save both, if that is not possible to need to save at least one. Nobody deliberately and intentionally set out to kill one or other.

Catholics respect life from conception to natural death, however that does not mean we would allow a pregnant women die or conjoined twins die.

The Randy Riverbeast

cattolico wrote: »

If conjoined twins are dying, you need to do whatever is possible to save both, if that is not possible to need to save at least one. Nobody deliberately and intentionally set out to kill one or other.

Catholics respect life from conception to natural death, however that does not mean we would allow a pregnant women die or conjoined twins die.

What happened to life beginning at implantation?

Kiwi in IE

MrPudding wrote: »

I'll just leave this here...

Of particular interest, I think is this:

"The Catholic church and other campaigners vigorously protested at the decision [...]". So cattolico, call yourself a catholic...?

MrP

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/05/sarahboseley

I had never heard of this case. The RCC advocated that both twins be left to die instead of saving the child who could be saved? Another example of how the RCCs 'pro life' stance applies to zygotes and foetuses, but is not necessarily applicable to actual babies and children!

MrPudding

cattolico wrote: »

If conjoined twins are dying, you need to do whatever is possible to save both, if that is not possible to need to save at least one. Nobody deliberately and intentionally set out to kill one or other.

Catholics respect life from conception to natural death, however that does not mean we would allow a pregnant women die or conjoined twins die.

I take it you didn't read the article in my post then... Kiwi has reposted it below, industry you read it.

MrP

Kiwi in IE

The above case must have been completely heartbreaking for the parents, and in no way am I minimising this, but I find it hard to believe that any parent, given the horrendous choice of one of their children dying, or both of their children dying, would choose both. It just goes to show the harm indoctrination can cause.

lazygal

cattolico wrote: »

Elsewhere you mean in another country with different laws? There is a right to life of the unborn, but there is also a right to life of the Mother.

Removing the 8th amendment would open the door to on demand abortion.

So the right to life is only important when it comes to women who can't travel to kill the unborn elsewhere. Does the morning after pill kill the unborn?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

So the right to life is only important when it comes to women who can't travel to kill the unborn elsewhere. Does the morning after pill kill the unborn?

A nation can only legislate for itself, not for others. Unless you want Ireland to develop a super military that bombs every other nation into adopting identical laws to ours?

I think most people accept the reasonable principle that we should try to set decent and humane laws in our own nation. Other nations often have laws that we would disagree with and even find abhorrent, but people can still travel to those countries if they wish.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

A nation can only legislate for itself, not for others. Unless you want Ireland to develop a super military that bombs every other nation into adopting identical laws to ours?

I think most people accept the reasonable principle that we should try to set decent and humane laws in our own nation. Other nations often have laws that we would disagree with and even find abhorrent, but people can still travel to those countries if they wish.

We could prosecute women who kill the unborn when they get home though. Why don't we?
And people who plan to travel to help someone kill themselves can face prosecution here.
Does the morning after pill kill a child?

Kiwi in IE

Nick Park wrote: »

A nation can only legislate for itself, not for others. Unless you want Ireland to develop a super military that bombs every other nation into adopting identical laws to ours?

I think most people accept the reasonable principle that we should try to set decent and humane laws in our own nation. Other nations often have laws that we would disagree with and even find abhorrent, but people can still travel to those countries if they wish.

I think if Irish children were being taken to other countries where it was not illegal to kill them, for the specific purpose of having them killed, the government/Irish legal system might step in to prevent this from happening? I don't think it would be legal for professionals to give people advice and support to help facilitate them to have their children killed in other countries where it was not illegal.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

We could prosecute women who kill the unborn when they get home though. Why don't we?
And people who plan to travel to help someone kill themselves can face prosecution here.

I don't believe you should be able to prosecute someone for something that happened overseas in another jurisdiction, unless it was also illegal in that overseas country and the two countries have an agreement concerning such prosecutions.

For example, I don't think we prosecute people who smoke cannabis on a trip to Amsterdam.

So there's no inconsistency here that I can see.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't believe you should be able to prosecute someone for something that happened overseas in another jurisdiction, unless it was also illegal in that overseas country and the two countries have an agreement concerning such prosecutions.

For example, I don't think we prosecute people who smoke cannabis on a trip to Amsterdam.

So there's no inconsistency here that I can see.

But we prosecute people who help those planning to commit suicide in countries where euthanasia is legal. That's a glaring inconsistency.
The eighth amendment isn't really about protecting the unborn. If it was women who killed the unborn elsewhere would face prosecution here. It's hypocritical to let women bring unborn children elsewhere to be killed yet threatened those who can't travel with a 14 year sentence if they attempt to kill the unborn here.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

But we prosecute people who help those planning to commit suicide in countries where euthanasia is legal. That's a glaring inconsistency.

I don't believe we should prosecute people who assist a suicide in another jurisdiction.

So it appears we are both against inconsistency. My answer to that inconsistency is a libertarian one. You appear to be pushing for an authoritarian answer that would restrict people's freedom of movement and facilitate widespread human rights abuses.

The principle that you can be prosecuted by a national government for an act that happened outside their jurisdiction, and where the act is legal, is tremendously dangerous. The US would have a field day with extraordinary renditions.

And think how dictatorships would exploit this. In North Korea, the atheist regime makes it a crime for people to meet and pray to Jesus. Now, what happens if I visit North Korea, but they realise that I attended church in Dublin last week (an act that was perfectly legal in Ireland, but would be illegal in North Korea). Should they have the legal right to throw me into a workcamp because I did something in Ireland that would have been illegal if I had done it in North Korea?

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

We could prosecute women who kill the unborn when they get home though. Why don't we?

Because its' not illegal.

lazygal wrote: »

And people who plan to travel to help someone kill themselves can face prosecution here.

Not exactly; people who aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide can face prosecution. Though in over 20 years, no one has ever been convicted of it, have they?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think if Irish children were being taken to other countries where it was not illegal to kill them, for the specific purpose of having them killed, the government/Irish legal system might step in to prevent this from happening?

It doesn't though, does it? That might have something to do with the fact that you'd be hard pressed to find a country where it's not illegal to kill children, and you'd be further pressed to prove such an intent, rendering enacting such legislation fairly pointless.

lazygal wrote: »

But we prosecute people who help those planning to commit suicide in countries where euthanasia is legal. That's a glaring inconsistency.

It does serve to prove the point though; the law against assisting suicide, at least in the case of suicide abroad, is about as useless as a law against having abortions abroad would be. Just think of the people who have assisted suicides where it is legal to do so. How many do you think put off visiting Ireland in case they get arrested when they visit? Which is probably why no one except pro-choice advocates ever puts the idea forward.

lazygal wrote: »

The eighth amendment isn't really about protecting the unborn. If it was women who killed the unborn elsewhere would face prosecution here. It's hypocritical to let women bring unborn children elsewhere to be killed yet threatened those who can't travel with a 14 year sentence if they attempt to kill the unborn here.

That's obviously opinion without any basis in fact, but is it not at all hypocritical to demand pro-live advocates support introducing legislation directly at odds with your own position?

denisander

following lifenews?

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

Not exactly; people who aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide can face prosecution. Though in over 20 years, no one has ever been convicted of it, have they?

You seem to be under the impression that something doesn't "count" as illegal until someone is convicted of it. That's simply not how law works and it's frankly shocking to encounter an adult who thinks it is.

Overheal

Nick Park wrote: »

A nation can only legislate for itself, not for others. .

So you've never familiarized yourself with international trade agreements?

frag420

Overheal wrote: »

So you've never familiarized yourself with international trade agreements?

Jeez.....don't mention trade in an abortion debate!