Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Absolam taking a pro-life stance has strenuously denied it has anything to do with a soul, but if not a soul, what then?

To be fair; I didn't deny anything, strenuously or otherwise. I pointed out that it's perfectly possible to hold the belief that an unborn child should be accorded human rights without requiring a notion such as ensoulment. As I recall, you agreed eventually. And I did offer options for your 'what then' if you remember, I said the notion that an undeveloped foetus, with no nervous function let alone a brain, is a person that should be accorded human rights only requires that one decide that any choice of when personhood has occured relies on some developmental milestone, which is essentially arbitrary since it can't be shown that such a milestone contributes anything more fundamental to the existence of personhood than any other (it being a philosophic rather than scientific concept). Since we can't say for certain when personhood comes into existence, but we believe it does at some point, the safest option to avoid destroying a person is to use the earliest possible moment we know that something unique exists at all. That moment is conception. Any further alteration is a matter of pragmatism; for the State it makes sense to work from implantation, for some people a nervous system, for some brain activity, for some birth. Any point past conception offers the possibility of killing someone; I'd suggest any choice is simply a matter of what people feel they can be comfortable with thinking of as 'practically no possibility at all'.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

To be fair; I didn't deny anything, strenuously or otherwise. I pointed out that it's perfectly possible to hold the belief that an unborn child should be accorded human rights without requiring a notion such as ensoulment. As I recall, you agreed eventually. And I did offer at least one other option for your 'what then'; that you have difficulty with the idea that someone would not withhold human rights from someone other than a person you think should have them is something we could just put down to a lack of imagination maybe? It's not like I'm the only one who's put forward thoughts on it, so there would seem to be plenty of options.

Perhaps we're mis-reading each other so. My understanding was that while it is not impossible for an early stage foetus to be considered a person from a philosophical rather than religious standpoint, it is highly improbable, that most pro-life people are also in fact religious, and that this is not a coincidence. The notion of the existence of a soul is obviously a religious concept, and if for a moment we accept that being a person from a religious perspective involves having a soul, and that this soul comes into being at fertilization, it seems reasonable from a religious perspective that the right to life should begin at this point in time. My question is that once we take the soul out of the equation (this being the A&A forum, so poof! and its gone) what are we left with that defines a person?

A simpler question just for you perhaps. Do you believe people have souls?

fran17

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps we're mis-reading each other so. My understanding was that while it is not impossible for an early stage foetus to be considered a person from a philosophical rather than religious standpoint, it is highly improbable, that most pro-life people are also in fact religious, and that this is not a coincidence. The notion of the existence of a soul is obviously a religious concept, and if for a moment we accept that being a person from a religious perspective involves having a soul, and that this soul comes into being at fertilization, it seems reasonable from a religious perspective that the right to life should begin at this point in time. My question is that once we take the soul out of the equation (this being the A&A forum, so poof! and its gone) what are we left with that defines a person?

A simpler question just for you perhaps. Do you believe people have souls?

I think the main attribute which defines any person at the most basic level is our sex.It determines our whole being,our entire life and our ability to procreate also.At the moment of conception,when human development must begin,this life already has a sexual identity.

fran17

robindch wrote: »

Fran -Great to have you drop by and contribute to the conversation.

Unfortunately, here in A+A, we try to avoid the conversational equivalent of fist-waving and mooning other posters, so could you please cut out the aggro and discuss like an adult? Cards and bans are in store for posters who can't.

The forum charter is here and you might benefit from a quick read of it.

Well ok,but in fairness Robindch is there a more derogatory term than "Anti choicers".

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps we're mis-reading each other so. My understanding was that while it is not impossible for an early stage foetus to be considered a person from a philosophical rather than religious standpoint, it is highly improbable, that most pro-life people are also in fact religious, and that this is not a coincidence. The notion of the existence of a soul is obviously a religious concept, and if for a moment we accept that being a person from a religious perspective involves having a soul, and that this soul comes into being at fertilization, it seems reasonable from a religious perspective that the right to life should begin at this point in time. My question is that once we take the soul out of the equation (this being the A&A forum, so poof! and its gone) what are we left with that defines a person?

What do you think makes it improbable for someone to consider a foetus a person from a philosophical standpoint? Given that it's philosophy, it's difficult to imagine what objective measure of probability you could apply.
You keep coming back to extensive arguments against the soul position when no one seems to be arguing for it... whereas I have pointed out there seems to be a whole gamut of options without the soul entering consideration.

smacl wrote: »

A simpler question just for you perhaps. Do you believe people have souls?

That is a simple question, but it hardly seems relevant, does it? I haven't advanced any position to do with souls, in fact, the only one offering arguments about souls is you, and it is, as you say, the A&A forum.

aloyisious

fran17 wrote: »

I think the main attribute which defines any person at the most basic level is our sex.It determines our whole being,our entire life and our ability to procreate also.At the moment of conception,when human development must begin,this life already has a sexual identity.

I think the above equally refers to any being or animal, as distinct from a human or person, at the most basic level. Surely the soul is a concept used in reference to human beings solely, a point mentioned by some Pro-lifers posting here?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I think the above equally refers to any being or animal, as distinct from a human or person, at the most basic level. Surely the soul is a concept used in reference to human beings solely, a point mentioned by some Pro-lifers posting here?

I don't think it is, no; Catholic Answers says animals and plants also have souls. Though I don't think your point was mentioned by any pro life posters on the thread either, to be fair.

aloyisious

fran17 wrote: »

Well ok,but in fairness Robindch is there a more derogatory term than "Anti choicers".

Depending on one's P.O.V, abortionists and killers in reference to Pro choicers.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

That is a simple question

It is, yet you seem unwilling to answer it. Why is that? Humour me. Do you believe all people posses a soul?

Cabaal

smacl wrote: »

It is, yet you seem unwilling to answer it. Why is that? Humour me. Do you believe all people posses a soul?

The simple answer is, Absolam doesn't like answering questions.

So instead he'll play dodge the question until the cows come home....which seems to be never :pac:

Gave up evening reading his posts due to this as they add nothing, now I only see them the odd time when people quote them.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think it is, no; Catholic Answers says animals and plants also have souls.

So reading that article, we get the following;

Human souls, by contrast, aren't material. They're spiritual. Only a spirit can know and love, a spirit's two chief faculties being the intellect (which knows) and the will (which loves). We know human souls are spiritual since humans can know and love.

So to be a person, we need to have an intellect and a will. Now without a soul or a brain, where exactly is this will and intellect coming from in an early stage foetus? Seems to me like you need one or the other, or perhaps even both.

alaimacerc

fran17 wrote: »

I think the main attribute which defines any person at the most basic level is our sex.It determines our whole being,our entire life and our ability to procreate also.At the moment of conception,when human development must begin,this life already has a sexual identity.

The only thing that's "sexed" about a zygote is its genome. By which criteria, spermatozoa are too, and thus by your logic, are also "persons". (As distinct from the ovum, which is presumably mere inert substrate.)

Little homunculi in seeds, every sperm is sacred, and so on, I suppose...

Giacomo McGubbin

My understanding was that when pro-life people consider abortion to be killing, they are specifically talking about killing people.

I don't know as the definition of people or person is utterly arbitrary. Whereas human life is not.

smacl wrote: »

So for example, as in the above you talk about a person's right to life.

No, please stop misquoting me, and address what I actually wrote, rather than what you'd like to pretend I wrote. You are the one that introduced the vague arbitrary word person. I was taking about the rights to respect another human life.

smacl wrote: »

You've responded to my question with another question rather than an answer, which suggests to me that you don't know what a person is.

I already told you, I don't know what a person is as it's a meaningless term. When does someone become are person, at what age ? 1 week, 12 weeks, 12 years old, 18 years old, 21 years old ? again it's all utterly arbitrary. If someone claimed in their opinion you are not a person, would that mean they could then take your life ? Person is a useless term when trying to respect human life.

smacl wrote: »

Some folks, predominantly religious ones such as those from the Vatican, would have a very different opinion.

You seem to be a bit obsessed with religon and the vatican, it's got nothing to do with religion, do you need religion to tell you it's wrong to take another human life ? You still haven't answered that.

smacl wrote: »

They seem to be of the opinion that a person suddenly sparks into existence when the sperm hits and penetrates the ovum, but I would ask what makes this a person? Absolam taking a pro-life stance has strenuously denied it has anything to do with a soul, but if not a soul, what then? What exactly do you mean when you consider a freshly fertilized embryo as being a person?

You are the one that has brought religion, persons and souls into the discussion, but this is the atheism forum, surely none of these things are necessary to respect human life, why do you believe they are ? Why do you think you cannot respect human life without religion or philosophy to tell you ? A soul has nothing to do with physical life. It's irelevant to the thread, but religon believe the soul is eternal, so you can be killed but your soul goes on, that doesn't make murder ok, so it's rubbish to say religion objects to abortion because it destroys a soul. You can kill a human life but you cannot kill a soul. Now can we get back to the actual discussion, respecting another human life, which has nothing to do with religion, unless you are claiming you are personally incapable of respecting human life without a religious of philosophical belief.

smacl wrote: »

What specifically distinguishes these rather few cells from say a similar number of autonomous cancer cells rattling around an old man's prostate? Similarly, what distinguishes us as humans from other animals such as flies or mammals such as rats? If you think about it, is you answer based on your religious beliefs?

A cancer cell, or a prostrate, or a finger, or an arm is not a human life. You seem to have a very strange grasp of biology and science and the human life cycle.

This will help you brush up on the basics of biology and human life.

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

aloyisious

Personally I'd like to know where the soul that's inside the feotus has come from. The Old (Hebrew) and New (Greek) Testaments variously describe the soul as a spirit, but also a breathing creature, and that it exists both in the present life and the afterlife. That seem's rather ethereal to me, reliant on belief or faith.

If the soul exist's and is an entity capable of existence in the afterlife, then it's neither human nor a person. It's completely a separate entity from the feotus, in which it is temporarily residing.

The creature or life-form we call a feotus is (IMO) not the same as a PERSON. That word is a label we, as humans, have stuck on it for our self-assurance and comfort (the future existence of our genes) in as much the same way as we grant the feotus CITIZENS rights, to differentiate it from other creatures and life forms.

We alone ascribe to the feotus any rights or labels it has. It isn't waving a banner around in the woman's womb claiming to be human or have rights. To my mind, a person is the living breathing human creature we all see among us, not a feotus in a woman's womb. I'd describe a feotus as a presumptive human.

fran17

alaimacerc wrote: »

The only thing that's "sexed" about a zygote is its genome. By which criteria, spermatozoa are too, and thus by your logic, are also "persons". (As distinct from the ovum, which is presumably mere inert substrate.)

Little homunculi in seeds, every sperm is sacred, and so on, I suppose...

See this is one of the many atheist conundrums I have trouble rationalising.You base all your beliefs and trust in science having the answers to all questions,even though it does not,yet you refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence and understanding regarding the question of the beginning of life/conception.If science had concluded that life began at implantation or 8 weeks etc. then you may be correct however its universally recognised and well documented that life begins at the moment of conception.Why do you not accept this scientific belief and when do you believe life begins?
I'm not a biochemist however is a zygote not the earliest development stage of an entirely new and unique life with its own distinct DNA containing all the genetic information necessary to sustain a new individual/life?Because science concludes it is.

aloyisious

@Giacomo McGubbin: Given how we seem to have a fixation on religion when it come to the feotus or unborn child, it's surely no surprise when it pop's up in the aethist forum, as it's followers are the alter ego of aethists. Without Deitic-religion, could people labelled (self or otherwise) aethists exist?

It's not just here in Ireland, or within the Christian community, that we have fixations on religion, We have a great belief in the various ways we can get newly born humans into the faith of our choice. I'm not describing aethists as belonging to some faith or belief, it's purely individual and not an "ism".

Hotblack Desiato

fran17 wrote: »

On the claim of my "personal ideology being forced on everyone else",well that is just fallacious.

The so-called "pro-life" agenda, by definition, demands that it be imposed on everyone else. Its aim is to prevent all abortions, after all.

Though even one case of fatal foetal abnormality or pregnancy resulting from rape is truly tragic you must remember that they account for a very small percentage of the total figure.2011 statistics tell us that of a total of 74,033 births there was 36 tragic cases of abortion due to fatal foetal abnormalities.90 pregnancies resulted from rape,of which 60 of the pregnancies were taken to term with only 17 being aborted.

Source of these figures?

I believe any law should represent and be in the interest of all the citizens of a nation,born or unborn

Birth is a requirement for citizenship. Getting a passport would be rather tricky otherwise.

,and abortion is not something a nation should aspire to in dealing with unplanned pregnancies in the 21st century.

In your opinion.
The thing about choice is this - those who disagree with something being legal are perfectly free not to take part in that thing.
Nobody in Colorado is obliged to smoke cannabis.
Nobody in any country where abortion is legal is obliged to have one - with the possible exceptions of North Korea and China - and taking away the choice to remain pregnant is just as much an abhorrent violation of womens' rights as is taking away the choice to not remain pregnant.

Poland is a shinning light regarding this issue,after the defeat of atheistic communism and the inspiration of Pope John Paul II they look to be on course to reverse abortion laws.Russia are also on course to saving the unborn after atheistic communism was also defeated.Children are not guilty of any crimes and to impose the possibility of a death sentence upon them is not something I would condone.

A foetus is a potential child, not a child.

smacl

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

I already told you, I don't know what a person is

Clearly.

as it's a meaningless term.

And yet it is the term used in both the constitution and throughout our legislation, so it would in fact appear to be quite a meaningful term. If you look at the text of our constitution it uses the term person extensively throughout the text. Not "a human life", "zygote", "embryo" or "foetus". Person.

When does someone become are person, at what age ? 1 week, 12 weeks, 12 years old, 18 years old, 21 years old ? again it's all utterly arbitrary. If someone claimed in their opinion you are not a person, would that mean they could then take your life ? Person is a useless term when trying to respect human life.

When we talk about respect for human life we are actually talking about respecting the life of a person. As such we need to be able identify what unique attributes define personhood. Outside of those indoctrinated with specific religious beliefs, many people would equate personhood with mental activity, e.g. from RationalWiki

Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognisable Electroencephalography[wp] (EEG) pattern from the foetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception.

The notion that a freshly fertilised embryo, or an early stage foetus that has yet to develop a brain, is a person tends to be a view predominantly held by religious people. Hence the pro-life movement is made up primarily of those with a strong religious background.

fran17

aloyisious wrote: »

@Giacomo McGubbin: Given how we seem to have a fixation on religion when it come to the feotus or unborn child, it's surely no surprise when it pop's up in the aethist forum, as it's followers are the alter ego of aethists. Without Deitic-religion, could people labelled (self or otherwise) aethists exist?

It's not just here in Ireland, or within the Christian community, that we have fixations on religion, We have a great belief in the various ways we can get newly born humans into the faith of our choice. I'm not describing aethists as belonging to some faith or belief, it's purely individual and not an "ism".

I'm pretty sure that atheism by definition qualifies as an ism.

Giacomo McGubbin

smacl wrote: »

Clearly.

Not really seeing as you didn't bother reading what I wrote the first time.

smacl wrote: »

And yet it is the term used in both the constitution and throughout our legislation, so it would in fact appear to be quite a meaningful term. If you look at the text of our constitution it uses the term person extensively throughout the text. Not "a human life", "zygote", "embryo" or "foetus". Person.

When we talk about respect for human life we are actually talking about respecting the life of a person. As such we need to be able identify what unique attributes define personhood. Outside of those indoctrinated with specific religious beliefs, many people would equate personhood with mental activity, e.g. from RationalWiki

The notion that a freshly fertilised embryo, or an early stage foetus that has yet to develop a brain, is a person tends to be a view predominantly held by religious people. Hence the pro-life movement is made up primarily of those with a strong religious background.

Show me where the constitution defines the word person in the same way you do ? It currently protects the unborn child, something you want removed so their life can be ended, remember ? So clearly the definition of person can change whenever it suits and whenever you don't agree with the constitution and wish to dehumanise what you wish to have killed. Again your blind obsession with religion, and you are the only one bringing it into the conversation, shows you have little grasp of the real issue, the protection of human life.

130Kph

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

...Now can we get back to the actual discussion, respecting another human life....

Could you define how much respect you have for male sperm? They swim around of their own accord after all, as we can see under a microscope. It’s human material and it’s living (it's swimming after all) so it must be human life - by definition.

Are you prepared to protect human male sperm from its earliest stage inside the testes?

aloyisious

fran17 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that atheism by definition qualifies as an ism.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

It is, yet you seem unwilling to answer it. Why is that? Humour me. Do you believe all people posses a soul?

Well, I am loath to wander down off topic rabbit holes; it never seems to end well. As for humouring you, I'm not sure there's any particular reason to, but I''l consider it if you tell me how relevant it is, given that I haven't advanced any position to do with souls?

smacl wrote: »

So reading that article, we get the following;

Human souls, by contrast, aren't material. They're spiritual. Only a spirit can know and love, a spirit's two chief faculties being the intellect (which knows) and the will (which loves). We know human souls are spiritual since humans can know and love.

So to be a person, we need to have an intellect and a will. Now without a soul or a brain, where exactly is this will and intellect coming from in an early stage foetus? Seems to me like you need one or the other, or perhaps even both.

Actually, we don't. What you've quoted says that a spirit's two chief faculties are the intellect and the will. It says nothing about to be a person, does it?
Odd that you're putting forward arguments based around having a soul, whilst attacking arguments based around having a soul. I'm sure there must be some name for that....

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Personally I'd like to know where the soul that's inside the feotus has come from. The Old (Hebrew) and New (Greek) Testaments variously describe the soul as a spirit, but also a breathing creature, and that it exists both in the present life and the afterlife. That seem's rather ethereal to me, reliant on belief or faith. If the soul exist's and is an entity capable of existence in the afterlife, then it's neither human nor a person. It's completely a separate entity from the feotus, in which it is temporarily residing.

I'd suggest that's a question more suited to the religious fora, though I think the answers you'll get will depend on the individual religions, and I suspect you may not find them satisfactory....

aloyisious wrote: »

The creature or life-form we call a feotus is (IMO) not the same as a PERSON. That word is a label we, as humans, have stuck on it for our self-assurance and comfort (the future existence of our genes) in as much the same way as we grant the feotus CITIZENS rights, to differentiate it from other creatures and life forms.

Well... that's not really true. We know for a fact that person who is unborn is afforded the Personal Right to Life in our Constitution, a right, like others, that we don't restrict solely to citizens.

aloyisious wrote: »

We alone ascribe to the feotus any rights or labels it has. It isn't waving a banner around in the woman's womb claiming to be human or have rights. To my mind, a person is the living breathing human creature we all see among us, not a feotus in a woman's womb. I'd describe a feotus as a presumptive human.

Like every other right we have, the right to life is one our society ascribes, yes. That you'd describe a foetus as a presumptive human seens a bit sloppy given that you're proceeding from what is to your mind a person; would you not describe it as a presumptive person, given that it's readily identifiable as being human; it's indisputably Homo sapiens sapiens?

Giacomo McGubbin

130Kph wrote: »

Could you define how much respect you have for male sperm? They swim around of their own accord after all, as we can see under a microscope. It’s human material and it’s living (it's swimming after all) so it must be human life - by definition.

Are you prepared to protect human male sperm from its earliest stage inside the testes?

Good grief, and there's me thinking atheists prided themselves on their scientific and biological knowledge. I hate to break it to you but a sperm is not human life, just as I had to explain earlier to someone that a cancer cell or a finger or a prostrate is not human life. Here's a basic biological reference site that will fill you on biologically what is human life and the human life cycle.

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

The simple answer is, Absolam doesn't like answering questions. So instead he'll play dodge the question until the cows come home....which seems to be never :pac: Gave up evening reading his posts due to this as they add nothing, now I only see them the odd time when people quote them.

Aw... but in fairness you generally tell me what I think rather than asking me questions, almost as if what I actually say when asked doesn't suit your agenda. Still, I think the big unanswered question between us remains "Are you currently lobbying to ban travelling to commit murder, or do you hold yourself to a different standard from Pro Life people who believe abortion is murder but aren't lobbying to ban travel for it?". If you've any burning ones of your own you feel I've not addressed, feel free to post them and I promise I'll read your post.

aloyisious

If one believes that the adjective "personal" directly relates to the word person, then it might be safe to believe that personal rights directly relate to a person (singly or in the plural), a human in the case of our rights law, especially constitutional law. What follow's in my next three (3) sentences is a case of 2 + 2 arithmetically.

Persons have personal rights, those defined in the constitution and other laws. Ipso facto: Persons, being human, are people.

Our constitution recognizes that children, as humans, born in Ireland are entitled to the right of citizenship.

Presumably, therefore, they are persons/people.
......................................................................................................

There is, however, a possible glitch there-in. As citizens, we have fundamental rights under our constitution. Some of these written rights seem to conflict with each other. Even our judges seem to have differing opinions on what's in it.

Judge Humphries is a case in mind. He ruled earlier this month - in an appeal case before him trying to overturn an expulsion order made against a Nigerian man by the Minister for Justice - in the high court that unborn children have all the rights of “born” children under the Irish constitution and law (in reference to a unborn child fathered by a Nigerian man) under the 8th amendment. His ruling included that the rights went well beyond the right to life alone. SPUC were happy with his ruling, calling on the Govt to repeal the POLDPA act.

That ruling seem's to me to clash with the 27th amendment, which we voted into the constitution, as the 27th limits the apparent right of children born here to citizenship, so I envisage the AG going to the supreme court to ask for an overturning or a setting-aside of parts of Judge Humphries rulings. His ruling might also be said to be an affirmation on the rights of children to the presence of the parents as guardians.

It might even end up with a definition being sought as to what/whom a person is, in terms of the constitution and any personal rights conferred under it, though that might open a whole new can of worms.

Edit. The AG might go to the appeals court re Judge Humphries ruling......

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

If one believes that the adjective "personal" directly relates to the word person, then it might be safe to believe that personal rights directly relate to a person (singly or in the plural), a human in the case of our rights law, especially constitutional law. What follow's in my next three (3) sentences is a case of 2 + 2 arithmetically.

I'm not sure it comes down to what one believes; personal does have a dictionary definition after all. You've thrown in 'a human' there without any reasoning at all, and as for what you feel is arithmetical... well, it seems fallacious to try to apply arithmetic to a language not based on arithmetic?

aloyisious wrote: »

Persons have personal rights, those defined in the constitution and other laws. Ipso facto: Persons, being human, are people.

How is 'persons being human are people' derived by the very fact or act that persons have personal rights? Surely persons are people because people is the plural of person?

aloyisious wrote: »

Our constitution recognizes that children, as humans, born in Ireland are entitled to the right of citizenship. Presumably, therefore, they are persons/people.

By that logic, children, as humans, not entitled to the right of citizenship are not persons/people. That means the vast majority of people on the planet aren't people. Which seems... unlikely?

aloyisious wrote: »

There is, however, a possible glitch there-in. As citizens, we have fundamental rights under our constitution. Some of these written rights seem to conflict with each other. Even our judges seem to have differing opinions on what's in it.

I think the glitch may be more immediate than you think, but still, certainly the idea of a hierarchy of rights is one that is often discussed, and there's no doubt that the exercise and extent of one right may be curtailed by others, as is evident by the fact we place people in prison.

aloyisious wrote: »

Judge Humphries is a case in mind. He ruled earlier this month in the high court that unborn children have all the rights of “born” children under the Irish constitution and law (in reference to a unborn child fathered by a Nigerian man) under the 8th amendment. His ruling included that the rights went well beyond the right to life alone. SPUC were happy with his ruling, calling on the Govt to repeal the POLDPA act.

I certainly haven't seen a copy of his ruling; if you have it would be wonderful if you could link it so we could all discuss it. So far we know that Justice Humphreys reportedly said Article 42a of the Constitution, provides the State must protect “all” children, and that because an “unborn” is “clearly a child”, article 42a means all children “both before and after birth”. He is reported to have said that the unborn child, including the unborn child of a parent facing deportation, enjoys “significant” rights and legal position at common law, by statute, and under the Constitution, “going well beyond the right to life alone”... which is a bit different to what you are saying.

aloyisious wrote: »

That ruling seem's to me to clash with the 27th amendment, which we voted into the constitution, as the 27th limits the apparent right of children born here to citizenship, so I envisage the AG going to the supreme court to ask for an overturning or a setting-aside of parts of Judge Humphries rulings. His ruling might also be said to be an affirmation on the rights of children to the presence of the parents as guardians.

I'm not sure I'd agree entirely with your characterisation of the 27th, but that aside, why would the Attorney General go to the Supreme Court? It seems to me it would be the Minister for Justice who would be looking to appeal any decision in the ruling.

aloyisious wrote: »

It might even end up with a definition being sought as to what/whom a person is, in terms of the constitution and any personal rights conferred under it, though that might open a whole new can of worms.

All things are possible I suppose, though I don't think the Justice's opinion hung on what a 'person' is; his statements give the impression that his opinion hung on the meaning of the word 'child' instead, specifically within the context of Article 42a.

130Kph

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

...Now can we get back to the actual discussion, respecting another human life...

Let me rephrase that. Given that sperm cells contribute approximately half of the nuclear genetic information to the diploid offspring (excluding, in most cases, mitochondrial DNA);

I’m trying to establish the level of respect you have for all mature human spermatozoon (during the time before one of their number may penetrate an ovum).

Surely, if you have such overriding respect for human life from fertilization you must have a compatible unambiguous, view of mature human spermatozoon.

smacl

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Show me where the constitution defines the word person in the same way you do ?

So you're now accepting we're talking about people here. Progress of sorts.

It currently protects the unborn child, something you want removed so their life can be ended, remember ? So clearly the definition of person can change whenever it suits and whenever you don't agree with the constitution and wish to dehumanise what you wish to have killed. Again your blind obsession with religion, and you are the only one bringing it into the conversation, shows you have little grasp of the real issue, the protection of human life.

The Irish constitution in this regard breaches basic human rights and is stated as doing so by the United Nations and Amnesty International, which is what I find objectionable. Its position is backed up by largely Catholic pro-life groups, which I also find objectionable.

What is also apparent is that we have abortion on demand in this country for anyone who can afford the price of a cheap plane ticket and is fit enough to travel. So really rather than protecting the unborn, the current position simply discriminates against pregnant women who are too poor, too young or too sick to travel. As has been the case so often in Irish history, this appears very much as the Catholic church yet again discriminating and causing hurt to the weakest and most vulnerable women in our society. My understanding is that we have ~3,500 Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions per annum, where the right to life legislation here stops a tiny fraction of this number of procedures happening among a group of people that have a genuine need. The notion that Ireland is a good God fearing country that protects the right to life of the unborn is pure farce, and in my opinion the attitude taken by the pro-life campaign is both hateful and despicable.