Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

In the distant past, it was not uncommon for women to die in childbirth. Human society has had a very long time to accept that even though they may value the newborn, they value the mother much more. Very few people would disagree with that.
So in a hypothetical modern scenario where the doctor has to choose between the life of the unborn and the mother, the mother has priority. The 8th amendment, in referring to "the equal right to life of the unborn" is just too simplistic to recognise this.

Well, I don't know; whether or not society values a mother more than a child is fairly debatable, but still it's pretty silly to say the 8th is too simplistic to recognise this. The 8th quite specifically says our society gives the right to life of each equal value. In a hypothetical modern scenario where the doctor has to choose between the life of the unborn and the mother, the mother doesn't have priority; such a scenario (as far as I'm aware) only ever exists when the life of the child threatens the life of the mother, in which case a doctor is obligated to save one life rather than lose two.

recedite wrote: »

IMO the POLPDA legislation is unconstitutional, but at the same time too few people wanted to oppose it, and nobody wants to face up to the legal paradox that has been created.
If it had been referred to the SC, they would have come up with some Mad Hatter type ruling such that "everyone is in fact equal, but some people are more equal than others". So that would have been a complete waste of time and resources, and also extremely politically damaging to whoever had pushed it and forced the SC into the ruling.

Fair enough it's an opinion, but I can't say you've given it any foundation. The notion that the SC would have delivered a 'mad hatter' ruling so everyone just avoided going there does rather belong in a Lewis Carroll fantasy...

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Similarly there is no actual reason to believe I was a person from the moment there was a zygote implanted in my mothers womb, and being an atheist I tend to look for reasons to support such seemingly bizarre assertions. Again this comes down to definitions, and I consider people as being self aware at some very small level. This demands a minimally functioning brain which doesn't exist until much further into the pregnancy. That a freshly implanted embryo in a woman's womb is a person is a belief that requires a religious or philosophical standpoint that is entirely nebulous. That a pregnant woman is a person is a hard fact. These things are neither equal nor comparable.

To be fair, the position that a newborn is a person is a belief that is equally nebulous; you have to shave even your new criterion of 'self aware' exceedingly fine to differentiate between a child just before and just after birth; in fact you'd have to be so specific that the only reason you'd make a distinction at all is to serve your own purpose.

I don't think anyone at all is disputing the idea that a pregnant woman is a person, though whether they're equal depends on what you're comparing, and that they are comparable is obviously a fact, since we do compare them.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

As a species it is also worth considering how much further we'd like to grow our total numbers. While the Christian imperative of 'go forth and multiply' made pragmatic sense in biblical times, it clearly no longer does

Good point, but this argument has become nuanced in recent decades. Many historically "Christian" countries no longer replace their own population sustainably. The overall growth in world population stems from other parts of the world, hence the inward migration into Europe for example.

smacl wrote: »

That a freshly implanted embryo in a woman's womb is a person is a belief that requires a religious or philosophical standpoint that is entirely nebulous.

Here's another weak analogy for you. The freshly implanted embryo is like a non-alcoholic beer. In the sense that even non-alcoholic beer contains a tiny amount of alcohol, but just not enough to get you drunk.
In the eyes of a heavy drinker, any weak beer might as well be non-alcoholic. But in the eyes of someone who is allergic to alcohol, or perhaps has a strict religious aversion to it, then even the non-alcoholic beer is off limits.
Obviously you are going to say " but that is their choice". But in this analogy the question is "When can a beer be marketed as non alcoholic?"
That depends on wider society making one single choice, and that rule applying in every case.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Here's another weak analogy for you. The freshly implanted embryo is like a non-alcoholic beer.

Ah here, weak beer and weaker analogies. Remind me never to go out on the lash with you :pac:

Obviously you are going to say " but that is their choice". But in this analogy the question is "When can a beer be marketed as non alcoholic?"
That depends on wider society making one single choice, and that rule applying in every case.

Or we could simply suggest that those who have a physical, philosophical or religious aversion to beer simply don't buy it in any shape or form, and leave the rest of us poor sots in peace. Some things are a matter of sensible personal choice.

Samaris

It's not quite as simple as that though, even if I'm firmly on the side of it should be. I get you were going for "where is abortion murder" through that analogy, but it doesn't quite work.

Beer is beer, who cares. One can look at a beer and decide "nope, not for me". Where abortion is ..not like beer, is that people will see other peoples choices of whether or not to carry a foetus to term as reprehensible murder that must be fought. Same as I personally would consider, say, state-sanctioned murder, as something that should be stamped out of society, whether or not it actually affects me, they will see state-sanctioned abortion as something similar. Thus it cannot quite be brought back to "drink the beer or don't drink the beer, it's up to you", as they see abortion as murder being carried out in front of them.

To another analogy, it's more akin to the question of slavery. If an anti-slavery activist saw a slave-owner beating or murdering his slave, would he think "Well, I choose not to have slaves, but I cannot interfere with a man beating his slave, that is his choice", or would he think "that is a disgraceful attack on a real person that cannot defend themselves, I must do all I can to stop it"? If a devout life-begins-at-conception person sees a woman about to have an abortion, are they more likely to think "well, I choose not to have an abortion, but I cannot interfere with another woman murdering her baby", or "There is about to be a murder right in front of me, how can I let this state of affairs continue?"

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

To be fair, the position that a newborn is a person is a belief that is equally nebulous; you have to shave even your new criterion of 'self aware' exceedingly fine to differentiate between a child just before and just after birth; in fact you'd have to be so specific that the only reason you'd make a distinction at all is to serve your own purpose.

That time frame and distinction is one of your own making, mine was between an embryo or foetus before or after a brain had formed, and hence any possibility of self awareness.

I don't think anyone at all is disputing the idea that a pregnant woman is a person, though whether they're equal depends on what you're comparing, and that they are comparable is obviously a fact, since we do compare them.

You can draw comparisons between farts and thunderstorms if you so wish but that doesn't make them suitable for comparison.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I don't know; whether or not society values a mother more than a child is fairly debatable, but still it's pretty silly to say the 8th is too simplistic to recognise this. The 8th quite specifically says our society gives the right to life of each equal value.

Yes, but the legislation gives priority to the mother. And very people would argue against that priority.

Absolam wrote: »

In a hypothetical modern scenario where the doctor has to choose between the life of the unborn and the mother, the mother doesn't have priority; such a scenario (as far as I'm aware) only ever exists when the life of the child threatens the life of the mother, in which case a doctor is obligated to save one life rather than lose two.

AFAIK there are certain kinds of ectopic pregnancies that could in theory be allowed to proceed to the point where the foetus is viable and could be saved, but the mother would probably die at that point. That is the kind of scenario in which the legislation gives priority to one life over another, and the abortion is legal.

Samaris

recedite wrote: »

AFAIK there are certain kinds of ectopic pregnancies that could in theory be allowed to proceed to the point where the foetus is viable and could be saved, but the mother would probably die at that point. That is the kind of scenario in which the legislation gives priority to one life over another, and the abortion is legal.

That is a very tricky one, as to actually birth the foetus would require surgery on the mother that the mother is almost certainly not going to survive, assuming she managed to carry what is basically a horrendous cancerous growth in her that long. To place more value on the life of the foetus growing abnormally to the point of forcing the woman to carry it to term and then cut it out of her is morally reprehensible to...hopefully, almost anyone. (I am agreeing with you on the facts, btw! But I'd sincerely hope that no-one would attempt to illegalise abortion or cessation of the ectopic pregnancy based on the rights of the foetus over the mother in those circumstances.)

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

To another analogy, it's more akin to the question of slavery. If an anti-slavery activist saw a slave-owner beating or murdering his slave, would he think "Well, I choose not to have slaves, but I cannot interfere with a man beating his slave, that is his choice", or would he think "that is a disgraceful attack on a real person that cannot defend themselves, I must do all I can to stop it"?

OK I'll go with your analogy. But first we have to define slavery ie when is an "indentured servant" a slave, and when is he not?
Having defined it, we have to decide as a society whether slavery is allowed or not. There can be no individual choice in the matter.

Samaris

recedite wrote: »

OK I'll go with your analogy. But first we have to define slavery ie when is an "indentured servant" a slave, and when is he not?
Having defined it, we have to decide as a society whether slavery is allowed or not. There can be no individual choice in the matter.

There can be if it is allowed by the state - at that point, a man (or woman) can decide if they wish to take that right of the state (to have slaves) or reject it as morally wrong, or to take it further, fight against it and get it outlawed as morally repugnant. Which is indeed forcing one's views onto a mass of people. But if they see it as the slaves themselves cannot stand up for themselves (or a foetus), then someone else must speak for them to allow them the opportunity to speak for themselves.

I am, admittedly, arguing this from a personal pro-choice perspective, but I have to understand the opposing view to hold my own one!

smacl

Samaris wrote: »

There can be if it is allowed by the state - at that point, a man (or woman) can decide if they wish to take that right of the state (to have slaves) or reject it as morally wrong, or to take it further, fight against it and get it outlawed as morally repugnant.

With respect, comparing a pregnant woman to a slaver is also rather repugnant and maybe needs a rethink.

Samaris

smacl wrote: »

With respect, comparing a pregnant woman to a slaver is also rather repugnant and maybe needs a rethink.

Just as the beer analogy isn't perfect, nor is the slave one. I was taking that purely from the point of view regarding what should or should not be interfered with by an outsider to the situation in terms of the relative personhood of the victim. While taking the analogy straight to its logical conclusion, that does imply the pregnant woman is the slaver but it's not my intention to relate them. The analogy in this case is a perceived similarity between the relative ability of the slave (or the foetus) to speak against being a lesser being with no rights, along with the moral imperative that an anti-slavery activist or a pro-life activist may feel to get involved in it.

Edit: That's not hugely clear either. I'm approaching this from the angle most often given "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one, leave the rest of us out of it" and why that argument has some issues with it, being that most of us will have things that we absolutely just cannot live with seeing happen without doing anything about it. Slavery, once considered normal, and what could be freely done to slaves, seemed like a reasonable comparison from that angle only, with no inference intended on on the pregnant woman.

smacl

Samaris wrote: »

The analogy in this case is a perceived similarity between the relative ability of the slave (or the foetus) to speak against being a lesser being with no rights.

While I understand your argument in terms of playing devil's advocate, and in trying to take the view of the honest pro-lifer who genuinely considers the human embryo to be a person, the analogy is still flawed to the point of being unusable as it is predicated on that embryo actually being a person. We know the slave is a person, and the slaver morally reprehensible. We have nothing, other the religious rhetoric, to suggest that a human foetus that has yet to develop as much as a nervous system is a person. By using the slaver as an analogy you have already drawn lines between right and wrong and I would suggest have created an association fallacy.

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

There can be if it is allowed by the state - at that point, a man (or woman) can decide if they wish to take that right of the state (to have slaves) or reject it as morally wrong, or to take it further, fight against it and get it outlawed as morally repugnant. Which is indeed forcing one's views onto a mass of people.

Well this is exactly what happened to the confederates after the American civil war; the choice to keep slaves was removed from them.

smacl wrote: »

We know the slave is a person, and the slaver morally reprehensible.... By using the slaver as an analogy you have already drawn lines between right and wrong and I would suggest have created an association fallacy.

But the slavers did not consider themselves to be morally reprehensible, they considered themselves to be well educated gentlemen. They simply refused to acknowledge that the slaves were worthy of human rights, which is analagous to your position regarding the unborn. But when dealing with those who were deemed worthy, they behaved in a very chivalrous and courteous manner, more so than their northern neighours. Even today, the southerners still have this reputation for good manners and honesty.

On the other hand, if I suggested that some people would have less rights than others, you would get up on your ultra-liberal, politically correct, high horse to reject that notion. Yet that is what the northerners did; they freed the slaves but did not give them full civil rights. That's analagous to how I would treat the unborn.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

But the slavers did not consider themselves to be morally reprehensible, they considered themselves to be well educated gentlemen.

But this post hoc comparison that places the pregnant woman in the place of the slaver and human embryo as the slave remains predicated on that embryo being regarded as a person directly comparable to the pregnant woman much as the slaver is comparable to the slave. This has not been shown to be the case. You could equally well take any unsubstantiated assertion of truth and insert it into your analogy. For example

Absolam wrote: »

You could have been a person since you implanted, you could have been one since you were conceived, you might even have been one since you were a twinkle in Gods eye.

Thus by using contraception you are directly interfering with the rights of those unborn people who will never be born because they've never been conceived. Just like those slavers and their slaves, but now our slave/embryo is just that single sperm looking for action and we're back to the Monty Python song. Same analogy. Same fallacy. Gotta love that twinkle.

nozzferrahhtoo

Samaris wrote: »

Part of the reason that this debate has never (and probably will never) be solved to the satisfaction of all is that it's one of the places where science and ethics, particularly religious ethics, and philosophy cross.

There is an edge of pessimism to this that makes it sound like science, ethics and philosophy are entirely parallel and should be. And that where they cross all bets are off and everything is hopeless and doomed from the outset. Like the ghost busters telling us never to cross the streams.

I am not so sure I share that pessimism. I think things like morality, ethics, philosophy and science can heavily inform each other. Not just can, but often they simply must do. I think it quite possible to come to conclusions on subjects like abortion that very much do bring ones ethics, philosophy and science together nicely. Especially if the ethics are based on some real world rationality.

Religious ethics however, divorced as they are from reality and substantiation of any sort, does hamper that endeavor mightily alas.

Samaris wrote: »

My view on it is that before the foetus is born and becomes an individually thriving being, it is not a full human with human rights.

Not a view I fully share. But the difference in views likely comes in what you mean by "human" in this context. Or to what one is hanging the term "human" off in the first place.

"Human" is a suitcase term that can apply to many different things, so context is important. If you remove a cancer from me, or I pick my nose..... then much of what has been removed in both cases is "Human".

In the context of affording someone "human rights" however one probably should be clear what one means by "Human" or is hanging that term off. Mere DNA does not appear to me to suffice for this. Nor does merely passing through a birth canal.

For me hanging Human Rights therefore has to be done off something a little less arbitrary. And the only thing that makes sense to me is Human Sentience and consciousness itself. After all human rights appear to come from that aspect of us and no other..... so it seems to be sensible to hang it on that too.

And given there are stages in fetal development that we can identify that not only do not appear to have that attribute.... but do not even have the facilities required to produce it.... I have no issue with abortion at those stages of development. A fetus at certain stages of development are the moral equivalent to me of a rock or a table leg given they appear to have the EXACT same capability to produce the faculty consciousness or sentience.

So I base my opinions on abortion and abortion cut off points on that. And what I have found reading statistics on abortion from places like the US, conveniently enough, is that over 88% of abortions happen within the cut offs I would morally argue for and a massive % of the remaining 12% claim they wish they had had them earlier.

So I do not feel my ethics and science and philosophy have crashed into a horrific and irreconcilable cross over point in forming my opinion of abortion.... but are actually quite symbiotic and mutually beneficial. And I can at least put up a decent enough argument based on science and philosophy for my position. More so than, say, someone who wants to claim person-hood for a zygote and can offer nothing more philosophically or scientifically robust than pointing out that you have no evidence you did NOT exist as a person before that point in some magical god's twinkling eyeball.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

That time frame and distinction is one of your own making, mine was between an embryo or foetus before or after a brain had formed, and hence any possibility of self awareness.

Well, no. I'm not offering a distinction at all; I'm saying there's no persuasively good (or necessary) reason to make a distinction.
Interesting that you're allowing the possibility of self awareness after brain formation (13 weeks before birth?) as a criterion now though, when before you said before you were born you were not a person; would it be safe to say that you yourself see no real absolute distinction to be made?

smacl wrote: »

You can draw comparisons between farts and thunderstorms if you so wish but that doesn't make them suitable for comparison.

Sure you can, but it doesn't make any difference to me whether you compare farts and thunderstorms, whereas it obviously makes a difference to you that we as a society find the right to life of a pregnant woman comparable to the right to life of an unborn child. Simply saying they're not comparable, when they quite apparently are, isn't really going to get much traction.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but the legislation gives priority to the mother. And very people would argue against that priority.

I don't see anywhere in the legislation where it gives priority to the mother, though I'd point out that the term rather muddies the water; 40.3.3 doesn't say anything about whether the mother or unborn has priority, it says they have an equal right to life. The legislation doesn't alter or contradict that; as I said, it can't, because if it did it would be invalid. The POLDPA sets out circumstances where it is not unlawful to take an action which may result in the destruction of an unborn life. Those circumstances are invariably where the unborn life would certainly be destroyed anyway, but it's earlier destruction allows the life of the mother not to be destroyed. So the mother isn't given priority; her life is the only one that can be saved in the circumstances.

recedite wrote: »

AFAIK there are certain kinds of ectopic pregnancies that could in theory be allowed to proceed to the point where the foetus is viable and could be saved, but the mother would probably die at that point. That is the kind of scenario in which the legislation gives priority to one life over another, and the abortion is legal.

I'm quite certain the legislation doesn't mention those circumstances, does it? So whether or not they may exist in real life, the legislation still only allows the life of the unborn to be destroyed where there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life from a physical illness or suicide, and in a number of Doctors opinions which have regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable and that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure. That scenario doesn't give an priority to one life over another; it acknowledges that one life may be preserved where two would otherwise be lost.

If the POLDPA did give priority to one life over another, Doctors would not have been obliged to consider a C section in the Y case; they could legally have terminated the life of the unborn child. The requirement to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable means that they must save both lives if it is possible to do so, they cannot prioritise. Thus observing the equal right to life, whilst permitting the ending of one if it threatens another.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

But this post hoc comparison that places the pregnant woman in the place of the slaver and human embryo as the slave remains predicated on that embryo being regarded as a person directly comparable to the pregnant woman much as the slaver is comparable to the slave. This has not been shown to be the case.

Well, there's a degree of similarity; at the time those who believed slavery was right also felt it was not the case that a slave was comparable to a slaver; it was argued that slaves were not fully human (sound familiar?), their suffering was as ethically important or unimportant as the suffering of domestic animals and they did not have any rights that would justify the abolition of slavery. It was argued that slavery was generally accepted by the majority in some societies (also sounds familiar), and that given the circumstances many slaves were taken from, living in slavery may have been the least bad available option for them (and we've heard it put forward on this thread how being aborted is probably better for some unborn than living a life where they are unwanted).

I don't think that slavery and abortion are at all analogous, but in terms of reasoning for why some people should not be afforded rights, there are similarities in the arguments put forward; the reason for not allowing people rights will, I think, always be along the lines of 'they're not really people like the rest of us, look you can see they're different'...

smacl wrote: »

You could equally well take any unsubstantiated assertion of truth and insert it into your analogy. For example "you might even have been one since you were a twinkle in Gods eye." Thus by using contraception you are directly interfering with the rights of those unborn people who will never be born because they've never been conceived. Just like those slavers and their slaves, but now our slave/embryo is just that single sperm looking for action and we're back to the Monty Python song. Same analogy. Same fallacy. Gotta love that twinkle.

Mmm... that other people disagree with what you want to call a person isn't actually a fallacy though. If enough people agree that a person exists from conception to confer the right to life from that point, then that is in fact the case; as I've been saying it's a philosophical position, so they won't be wrong. If they (we) say it's a person even when it's a sperm cell, it may cause us unimaginable difficulties to legislate for, but as a society we can do it if we want.

Personally, I don't think any of the usually touted developmental milestones can really be said to be where we become people; all animals develop brainstems, all animals (or mammals anyway) are born, all animals (or most) become sentient, all animals (or most) become conscious. We don't consider dogs or chimps to be people, even though they have ticked these developmental boxes; we reserve that description, and the rights that go with it, for members of our species. And that is certainly a defining characteristic of human rights; we obviously confer various rights on other species, we don't hold rights exclusively to ourselves, but we reserve human rights to our own. A cancer may be composed of human (albeit abnormal) cells; we don't consider it a member of our species, we don't consider affording it human (or in fairness, any) rights. A corpse certainly was a member of our species when it was alive, and we afford it some dignity, but we don't afford it any actual rights after it ceases to be alive, so I'd suggest vitality might well play some part (not least insofar as a dead thing can make no use of rights).

My feeling is all human beings ought to be entitled, by virtue of being human beings alone, to all human rights from the moment they come into existence to the moment they cease to exist (and I'll agree there's some philosophical exploration even within that), and that we should only refrain from conferring (and/ or should only qualify or restrict) any of those rights on the basis of practicability, or necessity. Rather than asking if there's a good reason to confer a right, I think an enlightened society should be asking if there's a good reason to withhold it.

volchitsa

Well, a good reason to withhold a right from a being for whom the word "existence" is debatable because clearly qualitatively different from what we normally mean by that word, is when its supposed rights come into conflict with the acknowledged rights of actual people.

The precautionary principle can only go so far - and it seems obvious to me that according rights to potential beings "just in case" can't be justified when that entails removing actual rights from actual people.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, a good reason to withhold a right from a being for whom the word "existence" is debatable because clearly qualitatively different from what we normally mean by that word, is when its supposed rights come into conflict with the acknowledged rights of actual people..

I can't agree that the word 'existence' is in any way debatable; that it exists, regardless of your opinion of what it is, is beyond dispute as far as I can see. That someone can't have a supposed right simply because it may conflict with someone else's supposed right seems like a fairly sketchy proposition too; most rights are qualified or restricted in some ways, and when we consider rights in general, the right to life tends to be considered one of the more fundamental ones.

volchitsa wrote: »

The precautionary principle can only go so far - and it seems obvious to me that according rights to potential beings "just in case" can't be justified when that entails removing actual rights from actual people.

Well, whether you want to consider unborn people beings or potential beings, I'm a little wary of saying someone shouldn't have the same rights you have, because you think that would remove other rights you have... it seems kind of like that slavery example earlier. Not that I think the fact that the unborn have a right to life removes any right from anyone else, but still, it sounds a little like an argument for privilege.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I can't agree that the word 'existence' is in any way debatable; that it exists, regardless of your opinion of what it is, is beyond dispute as far as I can see. That someone can't have a supposed right simply because it may conflict with someone else's supposed right seems like a fairly sketchy proposition too; most rights are qualified or restricted in some ways, and when we consider rights in general, the right to life tends to be considered one of the more fundamental ones.
Well, whether you want to consider unborn people beings or potential beings, I'm a little wary of saying someone shouldn't have the same rights you have, because you think that would remove other rights you have... it seems kind of like that slavery example earlier. Not that I think the fact that the unborn have a right to life removes any right from anyone else, but still, it sounds a little like an argument for privilege.

You've gone from indisputable existence of 'it' to using the term 'someone' there very quickly...

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

You've gone from indisputable existence of 'it' to using the term 'someone' there very quickly...

One sentence certainly followed the other without a doubt. But I think we've all been pretty clear that we think the human rights Volchitsa was talking about are the kind that go with the term 'someone'.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

One sentence certainly followed the other without a doubt. But I think we've all been pretty clear that we think the human rights Volchitsa was talking about are the kind that go with the term 'someone'.

Perhaps you could address that idea with regard to their direct quote?

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, a good reason to withhold a right from a being for whom the word "existence" is debatable because clearly qualitatively different from what we normally mean by that word, is when its supposed rights come into conflict with the acknowledged rights of actual people.

aloyisious

It seem's to me that in regard to feotus, we humans have several views on them.

Some of the views are directly based on religious strictures [one type of morality). Other POV's are based on common morality (what we see as simply right, wrong or erroneous). I see the latter as including POV's which lead the holder/s of same to conclude [maybe sceptically] that some stated determinations are simply ridiculous, and the former sometimes totally ignoring the obvious medical life-needs of the woman.

Some of our POV's can be based on a mix of both religious belief and common sense, which [regardless of the religious part of the mix] will allow for abortions as life-saving measures.

As said before by others, when it comes to deciding the life-fate of a woman versus that of a feotus, I believe that that of the woman has to be given priority. There will always be the exception to the rule, based on the doctor's prognosis of the woman's health (she is actually dying] whereby a different operation is seen or thought necessary.

Some of the POV's may be guided by natural human feelings towards what the viewer sees as another human being, the feotus, on say; a scanner. They see the feotus as a living human being as they see it moving and it's human figure outline and particulars, and are listening to others present talking about the same. They naturally register the feotus in their mind as another human, almost being held in their arms, in the room. That alters the reality of the situation and the responses to talk of abortion. An example of that is the use of feotus images, including some of scanned images, by the Pro-life groups to bolster their POV on abortion, playing on human emotional responses.

Personally-speaking, I believe that the woman must be given the choice, not the church, not the state. I'm not of the mind that women can't be trusted in making decisions, especially that of their lives and futures.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps you could address that idea with regard to their direct quote?

I think I did address what I quoted; if you're offering some other construal or commentary from what you've highlighted rather than what was said, you might want to set it out in your own words?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

One sentence certainly followed the other without a doubt. But I think we've all been pretty clear that we think the human rights Volchitsa was talking about are the kind that go with the term 'someone'.

That's my point though, the fact that "something" exists does not mean it necessarily has rights that may be opposed to those of an actual person.
You assumed an immediate moral equivalence between the two, not I.

In other words, if you want to apply a precautionary principle and restrict your own rights just in case the sperm or embryo or fetus is a person, that's fine, but "just in case" is not a good enough reason to remove rights from other people who don't see things as you do.

MrPudding

Despicable.

MrP

lazygal

MrPudding wrote: »

Despicable.

MrP

And why fiddling with the eighth amendment won't work. It has to be repealed completely and abortion made a medical matter for girls and women to decide on.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I don't see anywhere in the legislation where it gives priority to the mother. Those circumstances are invariably where the unborn life would certainly be destroyed anyway, but it's earlier destruction allows the life of the mother not to be destroyed. So the mother isn't given priority; her life is the only one that can be saved in the circumstances.

"Invariably" and "certainly" are incorrect words to use here because as I mentioned, there can be certain types of ectopic pregnancies for example, where the unborn could survive to a viable age if it was left alone. But at that stage the mother would die.
You are consistently refusing to acknowledge this type of situation because it undermines the foundation of your own arguments; that the legislation only permits abortion when it saves one life, in a situation where two would have died. Therefore a net gain of one life.

So in my example, it is a straight "one for one"; there is no net gain of saved lives. Therefore one life is "prioritised" over the other. I don't see how you can say the mother is not getting priority in that scenario. Ergo, the legislation is, strictly speaking, unconstitutional because both lives are not being treated exactly equally, as per the requirement of the 8th.

The only way you can get this scenario to fit into your worldview is to employ the Mad Hatter's technique of making words mean whatever you want them to mean. And you're not the only one; it actually seems to be the official line. But my interpretations are based on plain English as per the normal usage of words.