Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

No what? If you can't counter it, then let's mark that one up to me, and just move on, sure.

What point do you wish to make next?

No to can we park the organ donation analogy and can you continue without it for a while?

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

No to can we park the organ donation analogy and can you continue without it for a while?

I answered that in the post you're quoting here : sure. What other point do you think you can make that might be stronger?

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

I answered that in the post you're quoting here : sure. What other point do you think you can make that might be stronger?

I'm not sure we ever had a point of contention, other than analogy, I thought you might have a point to make about bodily integrity or something?

You seemed to be discussing rights earlier and time scales.

Edit: Sorry to be more precise you made this point:

volchitsa wrote: »

Given that a woman's rights are at stake here, could you try to pin that down a little by explaining what grounds you feel the fetus' BI rights stem from?

For instance take a baby on the point of being born : I think we can easily say that if it survives birth, its default rights are the same as any other human being, so that it's fairly easy to argue that one week before its birth, it's much the same being, and should have much the same rights.

It's harder to make that case for a fertilized egg or an embryo, even though the current religious view is fertilization, aka ensoulment.

So what sort of criteria are you thinking of when you say "at some point" it should have competing rights?

That seems like a good jumping off point if you're amenable?

volchitsa

I thought you answered that by saying you didn't know?

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

I thought you answered that by saying you didn't know?

Indeed, and said I was delighted to have a discussion around that point. You mentioned a week, but embryos were an issue.

My impression was you had a point to make there, my position was I was fully willing to listen.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Absolutely and I'd be delighted to have this discussion in factual rather than abstract terms. My answers may be rather disappointing though! As I don't really know and hope to gain some enlightenment here.

<snip> If we go completely the other way - and I tend to see things in simple legal terms - anything prior to implantation is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

I'd really need some guidance after that as I'm fully aware my issues with late term abortion are not based on medical facts. Certainly there is a cut off in gestation at some point, is it viability, is it birth? Not really sure.

My reply edited to conform to the terms you asked to keep the discussion on.

Samuel T. Cogley

Let me ask this question in general terms to maybe open this up a bit for anyone who wants to jump in -

When does an 'off spring' gain rights?
When is too late for an abortion?

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

My reply edited to conform to the terms you asked to keep the discussion on.

Right, but everything you've said in that quote there is just opinion, apart from the bit that mentions what the law says, something we are all aware of.

I've been trying to get you to explain what grounds you base your opinions on, not making my own point (because when I did you were unable to engage with it). Any mention of embryos etc is purely an attempt to clarify what stages of pregnancy are being referred to, nothing more.

You said that one reason you saw a difference was because we accorded lower human rights to newborn babies than to older children. I don't agree, and have already answered that. So do you have any explanation for your opinion (other than the law says so - we can always change the law!) that it's acceptable to destroy embryos before implantation but not after?

Or do you consider that there is also some time after implantation when it would still be morally acceptable to destroy an embryo or a fetus, and if so, what sort of timescale would that be?

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

Right, but everything you've said in that quote there is just opinion,

You seem to take umbrage with that?

volchitsa wrote: »

apart from the bit that mentions what the law says, something we are all aware of.

Okay, but the link you gave me (It think it was) you - introduced it which is why I ran with.

volchitsa wrote: »

I've been trying to get you to explain what grounds you base your opinions on, not making my own point (because when I did you were unable to engage with it). Any mention of embryos etc is purely an attempt to clarify what stages of pregnancy are being referred to, nothing more.

You said that one reason you saw a difference was because we accorded lower human rights to newborn babies than to older children. I don't agree, and have already answered that.

Actually we have not but you didn't seem willing to engage on it. As you keep bringing it up let's engage on it, in return I'll try and engage on the organs point as it seems we deadlock without our respective Mcguffins.

Story in the Telegraph here

volchitsa wrote: »

So do you have any explanation for your opinion (other than the law says so - we can always change the law!) that it's acceptable to destroy embryos before implantation but not after?

As I've said before I'm looking for a discussion on the matter. I suppose my opinions would centre around at what point does the fetus gain rights. I'd say that would end up being a rather multifaceted, discussion. I suppose my biggest concern would be the deveolpment of a nervous system and brain.

volchitsa wrote: »

Or do you consider that there is also some time after implantation when it would still be morally acceptable to destroy an embryo or a fetus, and if so, what sort of timescale would that be?

Yes, and I'm not sure, hence me turning to discussion. What are your thoughts?

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You seem to take umbrage with that?

No, but you said you wanted the discussion to remain factual. Opinions are not facts.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Okay, but the link you gave me (It think it was) you - introduced it which is why I ran with.

No, the link I gave you was not even Irish, it was about the ethics of abortion, not the detail of current law, and in particular it was about the value of the Violinist analogy - but you chose not to "run with" that. Cherry picking irrelevant points while ignoring the main ones is not having a discussion.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Actually we have not but you didn't seem willing to engage on it. As you keep bringing it up let's engage on it, in return I'll try and engage on the organs point as it seems we deadlock without our respective Mcguffins.

Story in the Telegraph here

That's about infanticide. Why are you dragging that back in when you agreed it was irrelevant? I didn't mention it, I mentioned your point about differing rights of BI for the developing fetus?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

As I've said before I'm looking for a discussion on the matter. I suppose my opinions would centre around at what point does the fetus gain rights. I'd say that would end up being a rather multifaceted, discussion. I suppose my biggest concern would be the deveolpment of a nervous system and brain.

Right, and this was what I was referring to above, despite your determined attempts at dragging infanticide back in over and over. :rolleyes:

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Yes, and I'm not sure, hence me turning to discussion. What are your thoughts?

My view on abortion is not centered on fetal rights, because the only situation where "fetal rights" are relevant are when these are to be exercised in opposition to those of the woman carrying the fetus. I've never seen any convincing reasons given why it should ever have that right really, not before it is capable of surviving outside the womb.

Basically my view on abortion is about the rights of the woman, and whether we can remove them from her.

IMO the pregnant woman has the same rights as the non pregnant woman, unless someone can show me a convincing reason why she shouldn't.

And "because she's got a baby inside her" doesn't really convince me until it's actually a baby, i.e., capable of survival outside the womb.
And even then I suspect that this still doesn't necessarily mean that she can be forced to remain pregnant, except in the most exceptional circumstances.
So the case of Ms Y where the HSE wanted a court order to use physical force to keep her pregnant against her will is just not acceptable IMO.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

No, but you said you wanted the discussion to remain factual. Opinions are not facts.

I did indeed, my fault. During this peeing contest we've picked each other up wrong on a couple of occasions, however this one was my fault. I wanted to remove the discussion from the abstract - opinions are fine.

volchitsa wrote: »

NNo, the link I gave you was not even Irish, it was about the ethics of abortion, not the detail of current law, and in particular it was about the value of the Violinist analogy - but you chose not to "run with" that. Cherry picking irrelevant points while ignoring the main ones is not having a discussion.

Quite, something you've continued to engage in yourself.

volchitsa wrote: »

That's about infanticide. Why are you dragging that back in when you agreed it was irrelevant? I didn't mention it, I mentioned your point about differing rights of BI for the developing fetus?

You've continued to mention it after I suggested we leave it. I assumed you wanted to discuss it after all.

volchitsa wrote: »

Right, and this was what I was referring to above, despite your determined attempts at dragging infanticide back in over and over. :rolleyes:

...

volchitsa wrote: »

My view on abortion is not centered on fetal rights, because the only situation where "fetal rights" are relevant are when these are to be exercised in opposition to those of the woman carrying the fetus. I've never seen any convincing reasons given why it should ever have that right really, not before it is capable of surviving outside the womb.

Great so that's pretty simply viability?

volchitsa wrote: »

Basically my view on abortion is about the rights of the woman, and whether we can remove them from her.

IMO the pregnant woman has the same rights as the non pregnant woman, unless someone can show me a convincing reason why she shouldn't.

And "because she's got a baby inside her" doesn't really convince me until it's actually a baby, i.e., capable of survival outside the womb.

So viability then?

volchitsa wrote: »

And even then I suspect that this still doesn't necessarily mean that she can be forced to remain pregnant, except in the most exceptional circumstances.

Interesting, what would those exceptions be do you think?

Samuel T. Cogley

Stating my view for the sake of continuing discussion.

For me it's about competing rights. I've certainly not decided where that right begins, probably at some point before viability but at a point of a developed nervous system and brain. However from a legal point of view and in the interests of 'nailing it' down viability seems reasonable to me, even if I've picked you up incorrectly on that being your marker as well.

When you say remaining pregnant, would you be of the opinion that she should be able to elect to have a surgery to deliver early? What if she did not want to do that and wanted some-sort of very late term abortion?

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I did indeed, my fault. During this peeing contest we've picked each other up wrong on a couple of occasions, however this one was my fault. I wanted to remove the discussion from the abstract - opinions are fine.

1) speak for yourself ref a peeing contest,
2) where have I picked you up wrong?
3) opinions are fine, but without any backing evidence they have no place in a "factual" discussion. Which was what you said you wanted. Now it seems you meant something different from what you said.

Perhaps you could define what you mean by the sort of factual discussion you meant, then? Because when you ask about when people think fetal rights should come into play, how do you expect people to explain their answer, if not by some level of abstraction?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Quite, something you've continued to engage in yourself.

No, I don't think I have. Where do you think I cherry picked from links?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You've continued to mention it after I suggested we leave it. I assumed you wanted to discuss it after all.

No I definitely didn't, you're making that up. Or else you've lost the thread of the discussion. I referred only to your point about rights to bodily integrity, nothing else.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Great so that's pretty simply viability?

So viability then?

Not in the sense of a right that can be used to take away the woman's rights, as I said. And the example I gave should have made that clear.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Interesting, what would those exceptions be do you think?

I can't think of any, but I'm allowing for the fact that there may be situations I haven't thought of.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Stating my view for the sake of continuing discussion.

For me it's about competing rights. I've certainly not decided where that right begins, probably at some point before viability but at a point of a developed nervous system and brain. However from a legal point of view and in the interests of 'nailing it' down viability seems reasonable to me, even if I've picked you up incorrectly on that being your marker as well.

When you say remaining pregnant, would you be of the opinion that she should be able to elect to have a surgery to deliver early? What if she did not want to do that and wanted some-sort of very late term abortion?

I don't understand what you mean by very late term abortion - that's just premature birth. What's the problem with that? (Different from surgery at the same term, I mean.)

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

1) speak for yourself ref a peeing contest,
2) where have I picked you up wrong?
3) opinions are fine, but without any backing evidence they have no place in a "factual" discussion. Which was what you said you wanted. Now it seems you meant something different from what you said.

Perhaps you could define what you mean by the sort of factual discussion you meant, then? Because when you ask about when people think fetal rights should come into play, how do you expect people to explain their answer, if not by some level of abstraction?

On point 1) see above.

volchitsa wrote: »

No, I don't think I have. Where do you think I cherry picked from links?

We'll leave this to a arbiter of internet points.

volchitsa wrote: »

No I definitely didn't, you're making that up. Or else you've lost the thread of the discussion. I referred only to your point about rights to bodily integrity, nothing else.

We'll leave this to AoIP too.

volchitsa wrote: »

Not in the sense of a right that can be used to take away the woman's rights, as I said. And the example I gave should have made that clear.

It didn't, but thanks for clarifying it. Are you saying it's never too late for an abortion?

volchitsa wrote: »

I can't think of any, but I'm allowing for the fact that there may be situations I haven't thought of.

That's perfectly reasonable.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean by very late term abortion - that's just premature birth. What's the problem with that? (Different from surgery at the same term, I mean.)

Let's say a woman a week from giving birth decides that she does not want a living child. Should we allow that 'offspring's' heart to be stopped and an extraction from the womb? (Sorry I'm fumbling around trying to find a non-inflammatory way of saying partial birth abortion, you might correct me on the proper term.)

I'm not trying to be flippant here genuinely interested in your views. Would it not be the case that if only the woman's rights are in play, the risks of birth or cesarean should be taken into account and she maintains complete autonomy in making that decision?

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Let's say a woman a week from giving birth decides that she does not want a living child. Should we allow that 'offspring's' heart to be stopped and an extraction from the womb? (Sorry I'm fumbling around trying to find a non-inflammatory way of saying partial birth abortion, you might correct me on the proper term.)

I'm not trying to be flippant here genuinely interested in your views. Would it not be the case that if only the woman's rights are in play, the risks of birth or cesarean should be taken into account and she maintains complete autonomy in making that decision?

You absolutely are being flippant, as your references to peeing contests and Internet points illustrates. I'm trying to work out what you're saying, which is not the same thing at all.

So as I say, on that aspect I'll ask you to speak for yourself and not to assume that other people are participating in a peeing context just because you are.

(Which also makes your claim to want a discussion rather bizarre. Which is it? :rolleyes: )

On the substantive point, my understanding is that what you are referring to is feticide, not abortion. I happen, unfortunately, to know that it can precede abortion in exceptional cases in the UK : where the baby is near term but can't survive, or may survive but with a very poor quality of life such as being in constant pain and needing multiple surgeries etc, then in some cases feticide is practiced so that the child can be born dead, as though it were stillborn. The alternative would be a child possibly born alive only to suffer horrendously and then die anyway.

I don't have an issue with that.

I don't know of any cases in the UK where feticide would be practiced just because the woman did not wish to be pregnant, that's a very different situation.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Let's say a woman a week from giving birth decides that she does not want a living child. Should we allow that 'offspring's' heart to be stopped and an extraction from the womb? (Sorry I'm fumbling around trying to find a non-inflammatory way of saying partial birth abortion, you might correct me on the proper term.)

I'm not trying to be flippant here genuinely interested in your views. Would it not be the case that if only the woman's rights are in play, the risks of birth or cesarean should be taken into account and she maintains complete autonomy in making that decision?

You absolutely are being flippant, as your references to peeing contests and Internet points illustrates. I'm trying to work out what you're saying, which is not the same thing at all.

So as I say, on that aspect I'll ask you to speak for yourself and not to assume that other people are participating in a peeing context just because you are.

(Which also makes your claim to want a discussion rather bizarre. Which is it? :rolleyes: )

On the substantive point, my understanding is that what you are referring to is feticide, not abortion. I happen, unfortunately, to know that it can precede abortion in exceptional cases in the UK : where the baby is near term but is so disabled that it can't survive, or may survive but with a very poor quality of life such as being in constant pain and needing multiple surgeries etc, then in some cases feticide is practiced so that the child can be born dead, as though it were stillborn. The alternative would be a child possibly born alive only to suffer horrendously and then die anyway.

Personally I don't have an issue with that.

I don't know of any cases in the UK where feticide would be practiced just because the woman did not wish to be pregnant, that's a very different situation, and not what I mean by abortion.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

You absolutely are being flippant, as your references to peeing contests and Internet points illustrates. I'm trying to work out what you're saying, which is not the same thing at all.

So as I say, on that aspect I'll ask you to speak for yourself and not to assume that other people are participating in a peeing context just because you are.

(Which also makes your claim to want a discussion rather bizarre. Which is it? :rolleyes: )

On the substantive point, my understanding is that what you are referring to is feticide, not abortion. I happen, unfortunately, to know that it can precede abortion in exceptional cases in the UK : where the baby is near term but can't survive, or may survive but with a very poor quality of life such as being in constant pain and needing multiple surgeries etc, then in some cases feticide is practiced so that the child can be born dead, as though it were stillborn. The alternative would be a child possibly born alive only to suffer horrendously and then die anyway.

I don't have an issue with that.

I don't know of any cases in the UK where feticide would be practiced just because the woman did not wish to be pregnant, that's a very different situation.

Okay and in the case of a perfectly healthy fetus a few days from birth, what then? Still within the purview of the woman to decide?

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Okay and in the case of a perfectly healthy fetus a few days from birth, what then? Still within the purview of the woman to decide?

I chose to have my second child induced nearly a week early so his father could be present at the birth (he had to travel abroad for work and was going to be away for three weeks.) Are you saying that shouldn't have been allowed?

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

I chose to have my second child induced nearly a week early so his father could be present at the birth (he had to travel abroad for work and was going to be away for three weeks.) Are you saying that shouldn't have been allowed?

No, and you know I'm not, I'll ask again, very clearly:

Should a woman, assuming that her right to her own body is absolute, be allowed to abort a perfectly healthy fetus days away from birth? Days would be less than a week and the baby would be 'delivered' dead. Morality only, not worried about any laws of Ireland or the UK.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

No, and you know I'm not, I'll ask again, very clearly:

Should a woman, assuming that her right to her own body is absolute, be allowed to abort a perfectly healthy fetus days away from birth? Days would be less than a week and the baby would be 'delivered' dead.

Have you not been reading what I said?

An abortion is just ending the pregnancy before the fetus has developed enough to live outside the womb. It doesnt entail killing the fetus, though of course the fetus may die as a result of being born too soon.

Feticide is a different procedure to abortion. It is sometimes carried out before a pregnancy is ended, so as to avoid pain and suffering for the parents and the baby when a severe, incurable abnormality is detected or confirmed near the end of a pregnancy.

I happen to know something of this, so I'm certain of that. Your idea that abortion means first killing the fetus and then delivering it is simply not true, not in the Uk anyway. I don't believe it happens anywhere nowadays, except in the sort of situation I described. Not for a healthy fetus.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

Have you not been reading what I said?

An abortion is just ending the pregnancy before the fetus has developed enough to live outside the womb. It doesnt entail killing the fetus, though of course the fetus may die as a result of being born too soon.

Feticide is a different procedure to abortion. It is sometimes carried out before a pregnancy is ended, so as to avoid pain and suffering for the parents and the baby when a severe, incurable abnormality is detected or confirmed near the end of a pregnancy.

I happen to know something of this, so I'm certain of that. Your idea that abortion means first killing the fetus and then delivering it is simply not true, not in the Uk anyway. I don't believe it happens anywhere nowadays, except in the sort of situation I described. Not for a healthy fetus.

Are you going to answer my question or not?

Correct any of the terms you wish to.

If a woman has all the rights and an unborn child none of the rights, is my fictitious scenario not entirely morally correct?

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Are you going to answer my question or not?

Correct any of the terms you wish to.

If a woman has all the rights and an unborn child none of the rights, is my fictitious scenario not entirely morally correct?

Your fictitious scenario is, above all, fictitious. I don't know of any country where a healthy baby at term would be killed in the name of choice. If you know of that happening, maybe you could get us some links.

You claim to want a factual discussion, but seem to confuse first your opinion and now your imagination for some of those facts.

IF you want a factual discussion I suggest you might need some facts. You seem strikingly short of those.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

Your fictitious scenario is, above all, fictitious. You claim to want a factual discussion, but seem to confuse first your opinion and now your imagination for some of those facts.

IF you want a factual discussion I suggest you might need some facts. You seem strikingly short of those.

So you're not going to answer then?

Okay that's fair enough I didn't answer your Organ donation proposition.

volchitsa wrote: »

No what? If you can't counter it, then let's mark that one up to me, and just move on, sure.

What point do you wish to make next?

I've just heard in from the AoIP and they say it's 1 - 1.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

So you're not going to answer then?

Okay that's fair enough I didn't answer your Organ donation proposition.

I've just heard in from the AoIP and they say it's 1 - 1.

The problem is that you are calling abortion something that is not what the word means. That's Alice in Wonderland stuff, and if you wish to consider that it's a victory because others have refused to use your new made up definitions, then fine. But it's really not.

Abortion is not feticide, it's ending a pregnancy before the fetus is viable.
Should a woman be allowed to kill her baby around the time of birth, no, I've no problem with stopping her from doing that. Should she be allowed to end her pregnancy - quite possibly yes.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem is that you are calling abortion something that is not what the word means. That's Alice in Wonderland stuff, and if you wish to consider that it's a victory because others have refused to use your new made up definitions, then fine. But it's really not.

I do believe I'm going to agree with you twice in one post! Frankly this was the issue I was having with the organ donation.

volchitsa wrote: »

Abortion is not feticide, it's ending a pregnancy before the fetus is viable.
Should a woman be allowed to kill her baby around the time of birth, no, I've no problem with stopping her from doing that. Should she be allowed to end her pregnancy - quite possibly yes.

Agreed also. So my question is a very simple one I don't have a set opinion on. When does it move from being okay to terminate the pregnancy and when not. I'm open to correction here but I think what you're advocating is there's a competing right (of some sort) at viability? What would that right look like if you do concede it exists (I'm not saying you do). What if it was very early on, could the mother be stopped for a very limited time (a couple of weeks) if that meant that the chance of survival went form say 30% to 80%.

Is there any room, in your view, for that point in time to be earlier than viability?

I'm completely done with the messing now, this is all I wanted as a discussion of this nature and thank you for the discussion thus far.

volchitsa

Again I'm getting the impression you're not paying much attention to what I'm saying, but rather looking for things you can hook onto to make your own points.

I mentioned Ms Y and I know you saw that post because you replied, yet here you are acting as though I haven't already dealt with the question of late abortion.

So let me try to explain the problem : if you remember the Ms Y case, she had requested an abortion all the way through her pregnancy, allegedly caused by rape, and by the time she got to 23/24 weeks she was still pregnant, and had by then become suicidal. Since by that point the baby potentially was viable, the HSE's solution was to apply for a court order to use force on her to make her remain pregnant, i.e. restrain and force feed her.

Are you saying that that would have been an acceptable measure to take?
Because the question is how exactly you feel these conflicting rights are to be exercised if you aren't prepared to do that?

Fwiw my opinion is that the baby should have been born by normal induced birth, and the baby given the normal care that any baby would get. That's a very different thing from your complete fantasy above about killing babies at term in the name of some absolute right.

She should be allowed to end her pregnancy, but not to kill the resulting baby.
In fact she has to be allowed to end it, because otherwise we find ourselves in a scenario of restraining and force feeding women. Which is entirely inappropriate.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

Again I'm getting the impression you're not paying much attention to what I'm saying, but rather looking for things you can hook onto to make your own points.

Yeah, see I'm getting the same impression from you. Let's strike a deal, substantive discussion only after you've made a point about me making this point. Fair enough?

volchitsa wrote: »

I mentioned Ms Y and I know you saw that post because you replied, yet here you are acting as though I haven't already dealt with the question of late abortion.

So let me try to explain the problem : if you remember the Ms Y case, she had requested an abortion all the way through her pregnancy, allegedly caused by rape, and by the time she got to 23/24 weeks she was still pregnant, and had by then become suicidal. Since by that point the baby potentially was viable, the HSE's solution was to apply for a court order to use force on her to make her remain pregnant, i.e. restrain and force feed her.

Are you saying that that would have been an acceptable measure to take?
Because the question is how exactly you feel these conflicting rights are to be exercised if you aren't prepared to do that?

That's an interesting scenario. Firstly I'd never let it get that far. Secondly if it did, I'd have to argue the right to life of the mother, now suicidal, outweighed the right to life of the child, especially as I would expect the chances of survival of that child to be fairly low.

Taking the same fact pattern though but removing the threat to life of the mother I'd probably say I could see that as the right course. I stress though, it should never get that far.

volchitsa wrote: »

Fwiw my opinion is that the baby should have been born by normal induced birth, and the baby given the normal care that any baby would get. That's a very different thing from your complete fantasy above about killing babies at term in the name of some absolute right.

We got into all of this because I was advocating against absolute rights, although to be fair to King, I think we ended up more debating semantics in the end now I've reflected on his/her posts. That was another reason though (the absolute rights argument) I wanted to untangle ourselves from that position.

volchitsa wrote: »

She should be allowed to end her pregnancy, but not to kill the resulting baby.
In fact she has to be allowed to end it, because otherwise we find ourselves in a scenario of restraining and force feeding women. Which is entirely inappropriate.

Certainly no argument from me there.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Yeah, see I'm getting the same impression from you. Let's strike a deal, substantive discussion only after you've made a point about me making this point. Fair enough?

You said this before but I don't think I did, and I asked you then for an example.
You didn't give me any.

You OTOH have agreed that you have misread what I said more than once.
So unless you can tell me what I misread (and not examples where you misspoke, such as your point about wanting factual discussion when in fact that's not really what you meant) I'm going to assume that you're just back to playing your peeing contest again.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

That's an interesting scenario. Firstly I'd never let it get that far.

But it did get that far, which is why I mentioned it.
You wanted to discuss your invented scenario, but this is a real one. And in Ireland.

By the way, what would you have done in the Ms Y case?

Secondly if it did, I'd have to argue the right to life of the mother, now suicidal, outweighed the right to life of the child, especially as I would expect the chances of survival of that child to be fairly low.

The problem with your conflict of interest approach is that by tying down the woman and force feeding her (which is pretty much what the HSE wanted to do) both would live.

So by your thinking, that would be a better outcome. Wouldn't it?

Taking the same fact pattern though but removing the threat to life of the mother I'd probably say I could see that as the right course. I stress though, it should never get that far.

Funny that you wanted me to reply to a completely fictitious scenario and one that would never happen, while you're clearly ill at ease with a real one that happened in Ireland, because of our laws.

(I don't really understand what you're suggesting should happen here, either. See what as the right course?)

We got into all of this because I was advocating against absolute rights, although to be fair to King, I think we ended up more debating semantics in the end now I've reflected on his/her posts. That was another reason though (the absolute rights argument) I wanted to untangle ourselves from that position.

Certainly no argument from me there.

So this looks as though you're saying she should have been allowed to end her pregnancy at 24 weeks, by vaginal birth if that was safer for her, even if it reduced the baby's chance of surviving. Or are you saying something else? It's hard to tell. And it rather contradicts your conflicting rights concept.