Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Loafing Oaf

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/uk-abortion-clinics-start-turning-9767254

Seems a bit odd that this is happening now, I thought the abortion rate was going down. If I was of a conspiratorial mindset, I might suggest this was part of a broad campaign to force a change in Irish abortion law...

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/uk-abortion-clinics-start-turning-9767254

Seems a bit odd that this is happening now, I thought the abortion rate was going down. If I was of a conspiratorial mindset, I might suggest this was part of a broad campaign to force a change in Irish abortion law...

Marie Stopes referring clients on to BPAS will probably annoy the Anti-abortion side of the debate further. They're apparently angry already with BPAS being invited to the Citizens Assembly to provide a point of view/current relevant information on (presumably in respect of Irish women) abortion figures etc to those on the assembly.

Hotblack Desiato

Didn't Marie Stopes have to suspend appointments in some clinics a couple of months ago due to some issues found? Could be a result of that.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Didn't Marie Stopes have to suspend appointments in some clinics a couple of months ago due to some issues found? Could be a result of that.

Yes. that's def a possibility, and not merely what the Mirror reported about a flood of irish Women attending it's clinics. I found the notion of Irish Women travelling across the Atlantic to Texan Clinics a bit strange, given how local lawmakers there were changing medical building regulations to stop abortions by women of the americas.

thee glitz

recedite wrote: »

That is an abortion provider.

Planned Parenthood are actually abortion pushers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxUAR3a_Jc

I trained my staff the way that I was trained, which was to really encourage women to choose abortion; to have it at Planned Parenthood, because it counts towards our goal.

It sounds kind of crazy, but pizza is a motivator [for getting abortion numbers up].

Delirium

thee glitz wrote: »

Planned Parenthood are actually abortion pushers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxUAR3a_Jc

Just wondering, do you have any other source aside from the video above? It was produced by a pro-life organisation so I'd be wary of the accepting the video on its own since they exist to push a pro-life agenda.

thee glitz

Delirium wrote: »

Just wondering, do you have any other source aside from the video above? It was produced by a pro-life organisation so I'd be wary of the accepting the video on its own since they exist to push a pro-life agenda.

I don't think it's a fake or produced under any duress.
Same source, different site.

Abortions are the most profitable service offered at Planned Parenthood, and as such, each center is required to perform a minimum number of abortions each month. Planned Parenthood performs 30 percent of all abortions in the United States, but less than 1 percent and 1.8 percent of the nation’s pap tests and breasts exams respectively. Planned Parenthood is an abortion corporation and its business model is built on turning a profit — a billion-dollar profit, to be exact.

aloyisious

thee glitz wrote: »

Planned Parenthood are actually abortion pushers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxUAR3a_Jc

The video has left me wondering if the two former staffers in the video have changed their ready acceptance of abortions and gone to an anti-abortion stance and whether the pizza quote was being used as an indicator of how little value was allegedly being placed by Planned Parenthood on what it was allegedly involved in.

It's recent news that the Trump Administration has talked about cutting back on federal funding of PP and there'd be no doubt that the above video would be used to further the anti-abortion group within the Trump Administration.

Samuel T. Cogley

So?

With all the 'stakeholders' screaming keep it, keep it - why not let a corporation redress the balance. If a woman is conflicted about having the child terminate, come back (or don't!) when it's planned. I find these arguments very difficult to fathom, it's either a sanctity of life issue or it's not. To reduce it to dodgy a consumer advice issue just seems bizarre. Surely if you can be convinced to have an abortion you weren't very committed to having the kid in the first place? If abortions are going to happen then I don't like that a corporation is profiting from it, but that's the ridiculous US model.

I do completely agree with the point though, if you don't have $10 to pay for this appointment - how are you going to raise a child?

aloyisious

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

So?

With all the 'stakeholders' screaming keep it, keep it - why not let a corporation redress the balance. If a woman is conflicted about having the child terminate, come back (or don't!) when it's planned. I find these arguments very difficult to fathom, it's either a sanctity of life issue or it's not. To reduce it to dodgy a consumer advice issue just seems bizarre. Surely if you can be convinced to have an abortion you weren't very committed to having the kid in the first place? If abortions are going to happen then I don't like that a corporation is profiting from it, but that's the ridiculous US model.

I do completely agree with the point though, if you don't have $10 to pay for this appointment - how are you going to raise a child?

Some people on the anti-abortion side of the debate here in Ireland use the term "abortion industry" when they refer to women and abortion here. They don't agree with the notion of - or use of the term - bodily integrity when it comes to pregnant women having a right to choose an abortion by some people on the pro-abortion side of the debate. To some it is very much a sanctity of life issue and to others it's not. We humans can never agree to disagree on the issue.

Hotblack Desiato

You are all overlooking the major moral issue here.

Is there pineapple on the pizza, or what?

Samuel T. Cogley

aloyisious wrote: »

Some people on the anti-abortion side of the debate here in Ireland use the term "abortion industry" when they refer to women and abortion here. They don't agree with the notion of - or use of the term - bodily integrity when it comes to pregnant women having a right to choose an abortion by some people on the pro-abortion side of the debate. To some it is very much a sanctity of life issue and to others it's not. We humans can never agree to disagree on the issue.

I'm anti-abortion myself, not because of any religious reason, although I struggle with the notion of there perhaps being a secular soul... anyway I used to swing backwards and forward on the issue until I was introduced to Sandra Day O'Connor's judgement. I can't, and should not, force my own moral agenda. So hopefully I can agree to disagree here at least!

Hotblack Desiato

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm anti-abortion myself

I can't, and should not, force my own moral agenda.

Being anti-abortion means by definition forcing your own moral agenda on others.

Being pro-choice means NOT forcing your own moral agenda on others, leaving others free to make their own choice. This is still true even if you would NEVER choose to have an abortion yourself (for those who actually have a uterus, seems about 75% of anti-aborts on boards are men.)

Samuel T. Cogley

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Being anti-abortion means by definition forcing your own moral agenda on others.

Being pro-choice means NOT forcing your own moral agenda on others, leaving others free to make their own choice. This is still true even if you would NEVER choose to have an abortion yourself (for those who actually have a uterus, seems about 75% of anti-aborts on boards are men.)

Possibly but I simply can't get behind the rabid fecking idiots that seem to make up some of the 'activists' I've been exposed to on the 'pro-choice' side. I use the term idiots loosely, most of them are very skilled debaters and/or lawyers and clearly intelligent, just very odd when it comes to this issue.

Hotblack Desiato

Odd in what way?

A man in Ireland has absolute bodily integrity. Nobody can make him do anything which might affect his health, or make him donate an organ, or even a pint of blood - even if somebody else will certainly die if he refuses and he's the only person who can provide this help.

A woman in Ireland has exactly the same rights as a man. Until she becomes pregnant, and suddenly she has no right to protect her health, and not even an unqualified right to life.

Why are you surprised that people are angry about this?

Samuel T. Cogley

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Odd in what way?

A man in Ireland has absolute bodily integrity. Nobody can make him do anything which might affect his health, or make him donate an organ, or even a pint of blood - even if somebody else will certainly die if he refuses and he's the only person who can provide this help.

A woman in Ireland has exactly the same rights as a man. Until she becomes pregnant, and suddenly she has no right to protect her health, and not even an unqualified right to life.

Why are you surprised that people are angry about this?

Not as simple as the bodily integrity debate.

Not surprised they're angry, surprised they're odd.

Hotblack Desiato

So you say. Again. And don't explain. Again.

Samuel T. Cogley

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you say. Again. And don't explain. Again.

Simple solution, pop me on ignore or don't reply to me. You seem to have my number and me yours.

Hotblack Desiato

If you have nothing to say, you can always say nothing.

robindch

Gents?

Thank you.

aloyisious

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm anti-abortion myself, not because of any religious reason, although I struggle with the notion of there perhaps being a secular soul... anyway I used to swing backwards and forward on the issue until I was introduced to Sandra Day O'Connor's judgement. I can't, and should not, force my own moral agenda. So hopefully I can agree to disagree here at least!

As I see it, a major part of the row between the anti-abortion side and the pro-abortion side is that the anti-abortion side argue that pregnant women have absolutely no right to decide what they can do about the fact that they are pregnant and must accept being pregnant as a fait accompli, purely because to do otherwise would be in conflict with the moral and religious faith the anti-abortion side hold. The anti-abortion side dearly want to hold onto the existing 8th amendment which was passed into our constitution on the back of a wave of fervent "save the babies" christianity back in 1983.

A very large amount of people on the pro-abortion side are women who have more than a moral faith interest riding on the result of any new referendum on the issue of abortion, They believe that if they are allowed the right to abortion they will not be infringing on any specific existing rights in law of people on the anti-abortion side. They see that the anti-abortion side are using, to use some of your words, their moral and religious faith agenda to supress any chance women here have of being allowed in law a personal choice to decide on their personal state of pregnancy.

It seem's to me that if you are in disagreement with the pro-abortion people and still hold your point of view that you should not force your own moral agenda on others, you might well consider not voting at all in any forthcoming referendum on abortion here, but that decision is clearly up to you.

Re your "surprised their odd" comment, would you mean very committed and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with their point of view that some-one who has no involvement in a woman's pregnancy should have no moral claim on the pregnant woman's body?

King Mob

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not as simple as the bodily integrity debate.

Not surprised they're angry, surprised they're odd.

Could you explain how it is different?

Why is it that you can't force anyone to donate organs against their will?
People die all the time for want of replacement organs, so people refusing to surrender their organs is allowing other people to die.

So why is having an abortion different?

Samuel T. Cogley

@aloyisious I can't vote in the referendum, bit if I was able I would almost certainly vote to repeal the 8th amendment. That wouldn't, of course, alter my person distaste, for want of a better term, nor does it rend the issue a simple binary. On the binary point that's part of the problem with it being a constitutional issue, it's not black and white. Legilsation is a much better forum for restrictions on abortion, which can be changed as required.

@King Mob I'm not really sure what you're asking, the analogy seems a bit 'out there' could you rephrase please?

On the organs point though as an aside, we have exactly the opposite law in that one can't give up their organs for money. A high profile Irish doctor commented a few years ago that one should be allowed, and in fact encouraged to donate a kideny for compensation. Dialysis costs 300K a year, there would be massive scope to reduce that through paid for organ donations. Any way I digress, just thought it was an interesting aside.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

@King Mob I'm not really sure what you're asking, the analogy seems a bit 'out there' could you rephrase please?

On the organs point though as an aside, we have exactly the opposite law in that one can't give up their organs for money. A high profile Irish doctor commented a few years ago that one should be allowed, and in fact encouraged to donate a kideny for compensation. Dialysis costs 300K a year, there would be massive scope to reduce that through paid for organ donations. Any way I digress, just thought it was an interesting aside.

I don't know what your objection is to the organ-donation analogy, it's not "out there" at all: it's the basis of Judith Jarvis-Thomson's well-known "Violinist" analogy: The under-rated Famous Violinist defense of abortion

... You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.

The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.”

Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? ....

The director of the hospital explains that "All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.” I imagine you would regard this as outrageous…

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't know what your objection is to the organ-donation analogy, it's not "out there" at all: it's the basis of Judith Jarvis-Thomson's well-known "Violinist" analogy: The under-rated Famous Violinist defense of abortion

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that defense, it would seem a bit out there. It looks, at first glance to simply be nicked from the utilitarian side of personal rights, which are again 'a bit out there', if taken in isolation.

Edit: Thanks for the link, interesting points about attachment (physically - umbilical) and infanticide. Some academics consider infanticide, merely an extension of abortion, certainly Ireland recognises it (or used to, must check if that's still on the books) as a distinct crime, worthy of much less punishment than manslaughter or murder.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that defense, it would seem a bit out there. It looks, at first glance to simply be nicked from the utilitarian side of personal rights, which are again 'a bit out there', if taken in isolation.

Edit: Thanks for the link, interesting points about attachment (physically - umbilical) and infanticide. Some academics consider infanticide, merely an extension of abortion, certainly Ireland recognises it (or used to, must check if that's still on the books) as a distinct crime, worthy of much less punishment than manslaughter or murder.

You're welcome.

Though of course Ireland's laws on infanticide are not really relevant here, because I'm sure you realize that the point being made in the article is that the law doesn't consider abortion to be at all similar to infanticide.

If it did, then any woman who was even thinking of aborting her pregnancy would be prevented from doing so, and her other children would probably be removed from her, at least temporarily.

In fact none of the rest of us think it's similar either, really: imagine the outcry if a woman who had killed a baby were allowed to just go ahead and take care of her other (or future) children with no concern being expressed about their safety.

King Mob

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

@King Mob I'm not really sure what you're asking, the analogy seems a bit 'out there' could you rephrase please?

It is a comparable analogy and expose that bodily integrity is the essential argument.

If a person is dying from kidney failure but can be saved with a new one, should someone else be forced by law to have a kidney removed for the benefit of the dying person?
If they refuse, aren't they responsible for the other person's death?

So why is it that a person cannot be forced to donate an organ? Why can't they even be forced to donate something like blood which is completely risk free and barely inconvenient?
Why isn't it legal or ethical to force people to donate organs even after they are dead?

In all of these cases bodily integrity is absolute even in cases where someone will die if they do not get a transplant.
I assume you agree with all of these, if not please feel free to correct me.

So why should bodily integrity not be granted to pregnant women?

It can't be because the bodily integrity of the fetus trumps hers as the bodily integrity of full grown human beings does not trump another persons.

So please explain why there is a difference.

Samuel T. Cogley

Okay so you're trying to equate organ donation and pregnancy/abortion. I'm not sure where that anaology is helpful to be honest but I'll try and formulate my thoughts around it if I can.

Bodily integrity - this is a complicated one and I think we need to stick to a moral inspection. The legal inspection is a bit odd, but I'll summarise it as I see it. BI is an unenumerated right (notwithstanding the right to one's 'person') and as with all rights are not absolute. Taking BI specifically it flows from 'the 'Christian and Democratic' nature of the state. Therefore legally the BI argument falls. This certainly shouldn't be decided on religious grounds, I['m not even sure if democracy can do it justice, but what other option is there?

So why can't they be forced to donate organs post death - well personally I think you should but I think the legal side of that would return to the Christian and Democratic nature of the right to BI.

Sorry that's not really getting to you point, I hope you'll excuse some musing as I'm here for a discussion and I will meander.

To me your argument is boiling down to a utilitarian v libertarian dichotomy, which of course if a false one. All decisions on society are decided by a myriad of factors, this is one that is particularly clouded by many, often irrelevant, factors.

Sorry again, still not reached your point perhaps I'll make this point and you might come back to me and help me formulate my thoughts;

legally - restricted abortion should exist, no argument from me there.
my personal distaste for same - would you like me to apply your above argument to that - realising it will be a mainly emotive response?

Samuel T. Cogley

King Mob wrote: »

So why should bodily integrity not be granted to pregnant women?

It can't be because the bodily integrity of the fetus trumps hers as the bodily integrity of full grown human beings does not trump another persons.

So please explain why there is a difference.

So I can take this part and give you a more direct answer.

They do indeed have and should have BI. The BI of the fetus should absolutely not trump or even be equal to the BI of the mother. However it should not be completely be denied BI either, at a certain point. That certain point is not for mr to say, I barely know anything about my own chosen field without trying to introduce science into it! (Grateful for some easy to follow material on same).

So I suppose a soundbite answer would be they are, at a certain point, two competing BI rights.

Edit: Which I suppose was the very point you were making! So in-comparison to forced organ donation I'd say the scenarios are too different to compare. No sex, no danger of death (in my analysis) natural process of biology etc.

King Mob

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Okay so you're trying to equate organ donation and pregnancy/abortion. I'm not sure where that anaology is helpful to be honest but I'll try and formulate my thoughts around it if I can.

No, I'm trying to equate bodily integrity to bodily integrity.

In all cases everywhere, bodily integrity is absolute, no questions or justification needed, even if that results in the death of other people.

You are saying that the exception to this is a pregnant woman.
I'm asking you to explain why it's different in that case. You seem to be having difficulty.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry that's not really getting to you point, I hope you'll excuse some musing as I'm here for a discussion and I will meander.

Sorry again, still not reached your point perhaps I'll make this point and you might come back to me and help me formulate my thoughts;

I prefer you answer a direct simple question directly and simply.

Why is it ok for a woman's bodily integrity to be violated when it is absolute in all other cases?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

legally - restricted abortion should exist, no argument from me there.
my personal distaste for same - would you like me to apply your above argument to that - realising it will be a mainly emotive response?

So we should block abortions and violate people's bodily integrity because of your personal distaste?
And you don't want to impose morals on people?