Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

...

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

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.

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

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.

So yes, although neither are ideal.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

eh?

volchitsa wrote: »

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

Sorry come again there, genuinely just missed this one.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

Probably more likely c-section but I wouldn't be adverse to an out and out abortion in this scenario either, sorry I thought I said that, sorry if it wasn't clear.

How does saying the life of the mother outweighs the life of the child in this scenario present anything other than a conflicting rights scenario?

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

...


So yes, although neither are ideal.

eh?

Sorry come again there, genuinely just missed this one.

You said "taking the same fact pattern but removing the threat to the life of the mother I could see that as the right course" - I don't know what you mean by "that".

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Probably more likely c-section but I wouldn't be adverse to an out and out abortion in this scenario either, sorry I thought I said that, sorry if it wasn't clear.

How does saying the life of the mother outweighs the life of the child in this scenario present anything other than a conflicting rights scenario?

Well, it certainly doesn't explain why the mother's right not to be pregnant outweighs the child's right to life. Because, as I said, the HSE seemed to be proceeding along the lines that if you strap the mother down and force feed her, then both will live. Which is a good point, if one is weighing up conflicting rights.

Isn't it?

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

You said "taking the same fact pattern but removing the threat to the life of the mother I could see that as the right course" - I don't know what you mean by "that".

Ah sorry! The Y scenario - I answered it and then said it would be different if the Y was not suicidal.

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, it certainly doesn't explain why the mother's right not to be pregnant outweighs the child's right to life. Because, as I said, the HSE seemed to be proceeding along the lines that if you strap the mother down and force feed her, then both will live. Which is a good point, if one is weighing up conflicting rights.

Isn't it?

Sorry still a bit confused what you mean here. Yes you should strap the mother down and force feed her, if you've arrived at the conclusion that the life of the child outweighs her right not to be pregnant anymore. However In the Y case I think the only option is to terminate, therefore you don't don't strap her down etc.

Although I do stress again that you have to have some pretty odd, poorly thought out laws to get into this situation in the first place. One such example is Ireland trying to do this by constitutional amendment rather than properly considered legislation and alterable, but I might be digressing there.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Ah sorry! The Y scenario - I answered it and then said it would be different if the Y was not suicidal.

Why would it be different, and what should be done in that case?

(Since even if she were suicidal, as the HSE showed us, then one way to exercise the right to life of both would be to get a court order etc etc)

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry still a bit confused what you mean here. Yes you should strap the mother down and force feed her, if you've arrived at the conclusion that the life of the child outweighs her right not to be pregnant anymore. However In the Y case I think the only option is to terminate, therefore you don't don't strap her down etc.

I still don't see where your approach of conflicting rights leads to an automatic assumption that the mother's right not to be restrained trumps that of the child's right to life. Surely a right to life, if such a right is to have any meaning at all, cannot be trumped by some less essential right not to be pregnant, or indeed the right to move around freely?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Although I do stress again that you have to have some pretty odd, poorly thought out laws to get into this situation in the first place. One such example is Ireland trying to do this by constitutional amendment rather than properly considered legislation and alterable, but I might be digressing there.

Well I wouldn't disagree there, but I think that once one tries to attribute rights to entities whose exact nature and moral standing we are unsure of, the same problems are going to arise anyway. The only difference is the law can be changed fairly easily if it becomes clear that it is not working well.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

Why would it be different, and what should be done in that case?

(Since even if she were suicidal, as the HSE showed us, then one way to exercise the right to life of both would be to get a court order etc etc)

In the case she is suicidal and we've arrived at a point that she's 24 weeks in, a c-section should be performed and the baby delivered. As I say though I'm not opposed to an abortion at this point in the Y - scenario.

In the case the mother is not suicidal though I'd suggest that she should be forced to carry the child to term.

However I have to stress this is in the context of getting to 24 weeks. Long before that, especially in the case of a rape, an abortion would have been the best course of action. At that point we're talking about a non-developed fetus vs. the mental well being of the mother.

volchitsa wrote: »

I still don't see where your approach of conflicting rights leads to an automatic assumption that the mother's right not to be restrained trumps that of the child's right to life. Surely a right to life, if such a right is to have any meaning at all, cannot be trumped by some less essential right not to be pregnant, or indeed the right to move around freely?

It doesn't lead to an automatic assumption but the right to life of both are weighed. One might or might not take into account other rights such as freedom from restraint, but only in the context of deciding who has the greater right, and then you do what's needed to carry out that goal.

volchitsa wrote: »

Well I wouldn't disagree there, but I think that once one tries to attribute rights to entities whose exact nature and moral standing we are unsure of, the same problems are going to arise anyway. The only difference is the law can be changed fairly easily if it becomes clear that it is not working well.

Absolutely. It's incredibly difficult to get right and an area I imagine shifting over time.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa - thanks again for the discussion, I've very much enjoyed the conversation and found the latter part very useful in clarifying my thoughts. I'm heading to bed now, if you post any more I'll reply tomorrow (later today even!).

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

In the case she is suicidal and we've arrived at a point that she's 24 weeks in, a c-section should be performed and the baby delivered. As I say though I'm not opposed to an abortion at this point in the Y - scenario.

In the case the mother is not suicidal though I'd suggest that she should be forced to carry the child to term.

Forced as in strapped down and force fed, as per the HSE's court application?

(I think it was actually forced hydration that was requested initially, but presumably if that had been granted the necessary next step would have been forced feeding.)

On what moral/ethical grounds would that be acceptable, assuming she wasn't actively suicidal?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

However I have to stress this is in the context of getting to 24 weeks. Long before that, especially in the case of a rape, an abortion would have been the best course of action. At that point we're talking about a non-developed fetus vs. the mental well being of the mother.

Yes, we agree on most of that.

However I'm not sure why you think rape means the fetus should have fewer rights (another reason I don't think that the concept of granting fetal rights as a useful approach to abortion). Why should the circumstances of its conception make it a second class fetus in some way? Either it has these rights or it doesn't, surely?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It doesn't lead to an automatic assumption but the right to life of both are weighed. One might or might not take into account other rights such as freedom from restraint, but only in the context of deciding who has the greater right, and then you do what's needed to carry out that goal.

There's the real rub : we're no nearer to deciding on what grounds we would make that decision. A fetus conceived of rape seems to have fewer rights than one where the woman was a bit drunk and thought "Ah, feckit, sure it'll be grand"??

It all seems very random, and not based on fetal rights at all really, but more on other people's levels of personal discomfort at the various possible outcomes.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Absolutely. It's incredibly difficult to get right and an area I imagine shifting over time.

Indeed. Giving women the vote may be where it all went wrong!

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

volchitsa - thanks again for the discussion, I've very much enjoyed the conversation and found the latter part very useful in clarifying my thoughts. I'm heading to bed now, if you post any more I'll reply tomorrow (later today even!).

Yes me too, and indeed it's helped me too I think.
I need to get to bed too, good night!

nozzferrahhtoo

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

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.

That would be selective at best though as BOTH sides (usually on just about every issue) have their idiots.

I have mentioned this a few times before but back when I was younger I decided that I should explore the concept of abortion and decide my stance on it. I did not want to be pro-choice just because my "atheists" or other political leanings made it stereotypical for me to be.

As part of this exploration as to whether I should be pro or anti choice on the matter I set aside an entire Saturday afternoon to go and talk to the people on those information desks that used to be around Central Bank in Dublin. You remember the ones, with the aborted fetus pictures (pictures usually selected at a stage in the development process LONG after the VAST majority of actual abortions take place).

So I walked up to them and told them honestly and outright that I had no god beliefs yet I wanted to explore the topic of abortion honestly and not just fall into what is expected of me.

They asked had I seen the photos. I said I did indeed and now wanted to hear their arguments on the subject. In a kind of stereotypical stoner drawl one of them said "The pictures maaaaaan, loook at the piiiiiictures".

After some more conversations with the rest of the "staff" it became apparent these guys were idiots, had no knowledge or arguments on the subject, and their sole qualification for being there appeared to be that they had nothing else to do of a Saturday afternoon.

Alas in many many conversations and debates since, on and off line, the standard has not really gone up with their level of argument. They got nothing. If you look at my conversations over on politics.ie they sum total of their rebuttal of my current position on the subject is to call me a "gaylord" or a "twat". On THIS forum if you look at my exchanges with people like, for example, Outlaw Pete you will see the best they can do is trot out misrepresentations of science in order to try and make you more emotional relating to the fetus.

So both sides have their idiots I am sure.... but deciding which side you support based on a distaste for the idiots on the "other" side is a pretty anti-intellectual approach to any subject at best. It should not be about who you can "get behind". It should be about where the arguments on the subject intellectually bring you.

For me the only thing that will likely ever shift my opinion on the abortion debate is if someone on the anti-choice side presents me with an argument as to why we should hold moral or ethical concern for a fetus (at the stage when the VAST majority of abortions by choice occur) or consider it to have a right to life.

Since arguments supporting these are.... well.... not forthcoming..... my position on the subject remains quite stationary, and has nothing to do with who I think are idiots. In either camp.

Loafing Oaf

I wonder what will happen to the mooted referendum if as seems almost certain, there is a GE before it can happen, and the next government is led by FF. MM is predictably unenthused by the prospect here, but he doesn't quite rule it out...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/big-interview-michel-martin-ff-manifesto-not-going-there-over-abortion-34144083.html

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

Forced as in strapped down and force fed, as per the HSE's court application?

(I think it was actually forced hydration that was requested initially, but presumably if that had been granted the necessary next step would have been forced feeding.)

On what moral/ethical grounds would that be acceptable, assuming she wasn't actively suicidal?

Moral and ethical grounds of the rights of the fetus outweighing the rights of the mother.

volchitsa wrote: »

However I'm not sure why you think rape means the fetus should have fewer rights (another reason I don't think that the concept of granting fetal rights as a useful approach to abortion). Why should the circumstances of its conception make it a second class fetus in some way? Either it has these rights or it doesn't, surely?

It doesn't negate the rights of the foetus, it simply adds another dimension to the rights of the mother. I'd imagine having to take a baby to term which was the result of a rape would be very damaging to the mental health of the mother. This would have to be considered.

volchitsa wrote: »

There's the real rub : we're no nearer to deciding on what grounds we would make that decision. A fetus conceived of rape seems to have fewer rights than one where the woman was a bit drunk and thought "Ah, feckit, sure it'll be grand"??

It all seems very random, and not based on fetal rights at all really, but more on other people's levels of personal discomfort at the various possible outcomes.

As above and a court, ideally with a specialist judge. The court would be informed my mental heal professionals.

***

Sorry it took me longer to get back to you than I promised.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Moral and ethical grounds of the rights of the fetus outweighing the rights of the mother.

But what exactly are those grounds?

Outside of the traditional "new soul created upon conception" theory, there doesn't seem to be any even minimally coherent explanation for supposing that the fetus should have rights that can outweigh those of the woman.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It doesn't negate the rights of the foetus, it simply adds another dimension to the rights of the mother. I'd imagine having to take a baby to term which was the result of a rape would be very damaging to the mental health of the mother. This would have to be considered.

But an unwanted pregnancy could potentially do the same. How can the law decide that one set of circumstances causes such harm to the woman that a fetus actually loses its right to life, but that no other circumstances (undefined) can possibly cause comparable harm.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

As above and a court, ideally with a specialist judge. The court would be informed my mental heal professionals.

Not too sure what you're saying here : the law on abortion should be based on
third parties' moral discomfort at the woman's consent or lack of it, and not on the supposed right to life of the fetus?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

***

Sorry it took me longer to get back to you than I promised.

No worries. RL does get in the way sometimes. Inexplicably. :rolleyes:

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

But what exactly are those grounds?

Outside of the traditional "new soul created upon conception" theory, there doesn't seem to be any even minimally coherent explanation for supposing that the fetus should have rights that can outweigh those of the woman.

Indeed, but we'd both arrived at an impasse there. You had said at a certain point it was no longer an abortion and I said viability seemed reasonable but possibly earlier.

Personally I think it's a fluid scale for both, however that scale is very, very low at the stage of an early foetus. In reality this is what happens in the vast majority of countries with legal abortion - it's legal until X weeks.

volchitsa wrote: »

But an unwanted pregnancy could potentially do the same. How can the law decide that one set of circumstances causes such harm to the woman that a fetus actually loses its right to life, but that no other circumstances (undefined) can possibly cause comparable harm.

It could but one would have to look at the facts on the ground, as informed by mental healh professional. In practice this is already done, court orders etc. One could legislate for abortion without the need for this until X weeks of course, but I'd like to see a medical justification for it. For example - 12 weeks it's got no nervous system, etc.

volchitsa wrote: »

Not too sure what you're saying here : the law on abortion should be based on
third parties' moral discomfort at the woman's consent or lack of it, and not on the supposed right to life of the fetus?

I'm not sure exactly where the confusion is arising? I'm trying to be as clear as possible but I'm certainly happy to keep trying as you have with me!

volchitsa wrote: »

No worries. RL does get in the way sometimes. Inexplicably. :rolleyes:

I hear ya!

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Indeed, but we'd both arrived at an impasse there. You had said at a certain point it was no longer an abortion and I said viability seemed reasonable but possibly earlier.

Personally I think it's a fluid scale for both, however that scale is very, very low at the stage of an early foetus. In reality this is what happens in the vast majority of countries with legal abortion - it's legal until X weeks.

I'm fairly sure you'll find no democracies where the woman can even potentially be strapped down and force fed because she's missed the deadline though - the legal limits in most countries are of the same level as voting or drinking ages, i.e. somewhat arbitrary dates because the law requires a line in the sand.

Whereas here you are using this arbitrary concept to allow what would be a clear case of false imprisonment in most countries.

That requires a whole other level of justification, in terms of human rights legislation, and I haven't seen any from anyone.

It could but one would have to look at the facts on the ground, as informed by mental healh professional. In practice this is already done, court orders etc. One could legislate for abortion without the need for this until X weeks of course, but I'd like to see a medical justification for it. For example - 12 weeks it's got no nervous system, etc.

I'm not sure exactly where the confusion is arising? I'm trying to be as clear as possible but I'm certainly happy to keep trying as you have with me!

I hear ya!

I think the confusion arises from the fact that you're discussing how the details of this law could be worked out, but you haven't set out any basis for why the woman should be forced in the first place, IOW why the fetus has any rights over her body at all.

As I said, I have no problem accepting the view that the (normally developing) fetus itself should not be directly killed because the woman wishes it - my argument is that she has at least some degree of entitlement not to be pregnant any more. So if she ends her pregnancy at 8 or 12 or 16 weeks, the fetus will die.

If she ends it at 30 weeks it will live - and in between those dates I can easily envisage that the law might not allow her to decide to end a pregnancy where that will cause the resulting child to endure otherwise avoidable disability due to its premature birth.

So I don't see that being pro choice means she has to be allowed to end a pregnancy at any stage, without consequences for her. It just means she has to be able to do so in the early stages of her pregnancy. Later terminations would have to be for pressing reasons only - but at no point would physical restraint of the woman be an acceptable solution because of the supposed rights of the fetus. That way madness lies - what about fetal alcohol syndrome? And so on.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm fairly sure you'll find no democracies where the woman can even potentially be strapped down and force fed because she's missed the deadline though - the legal limits in most countries are of the same level as voting or drinking ages, i.e. somewhat arbitrary dates because the law requires a line in the sand.

Whereas here you are using this arbitrary concept to allow what would be a clear case of false imprisonment in most countries.

That requires a whole other level of justification, in terms of human rights legislation, and I haven't seen any from anyone.

I think if a woman wanted to end her pregnancy at say 25 weeks where the limit is say 18 weeks, a court order could be applied for and that person sectioned if required.

Is what you're saying that you would expect it to be a criminal sanction after the fact in the majority of cases? If so I agree.

volchitsa wrote: »

I think the confusion arises from the fact that you're discussing how the details of this law could be worked out, but you haven't set out any basis for why the woman should be forced in the first place, IOW why the fetus has any rights over her body at all.

As I said, I have no problem accepting the view that the (normally developing) fetus itself should not be directly killed because the woman wishes it - my argument is that she has at least some degree of entitlement not to be pregnant any more. So if she ends her pregnancy at 8 or 12 or 16 weeks, the fetus will die.

If she ends it at 30 weeks it will live - and in between those dates I can easily envisage that the law might not allow her to decide to end a pregnancy where that will cause the resulting child to endure otherwise avoidable disability due to its premature birth.

I don't think we disagree on much to be honest. However and I hesitate to bring it up - this is where I think that organ donation analogy is a bit specious. In that analogy one has to arrive at the conclusion that even a week before birth/the concert - one would be allowed to kill the violinist - or at least that's what I got from it.

volchitsa wrote: »

So I don't see that being pro choice means she has to be allowed to end a pregnancy at any stage, without consequences for her. It just means she has to be able to do so in the early stages of her pregnancy. Later terminations would have to be for pressing reasons only - but at no point would physical restraint of the woman be an acceptable solution because of the supposed rights of the fetus. That way madness lies - what about fetal alcohol syndrome? And so on.

Hotsback made a good point that having a distaste for abortion did not make one not pro choice (sorry for the double negative there). it made me think, but I arrived at the conclusion that like most things labelling probably doesn't help.

I'm not meaning to try and put words into your mouth here but I think you agree that the fetus gains rights at some point. Please correct me there if I'm wrong. I think you're not entirely comfortable on how we'd decide those rights though. This is an entirely different thing to the fetus having no rights until X point ,or maybe it isn't but I don't think a black and white line is useful.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I think if a woman wanted to end her pregnancy at say 25 weeks where the limit is say 18 weeks, a court order could be applied for and that person sectioned if required.

You realize you can't section someone just because they want to do something illegal, right? So no, a court order couldn't. Not unless the person showed signs of mental illness.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Is what you're saying that you would expect it to be a criminal sanction after the fact in the majority of cases? If so I agree.

No, I'm saying that's a possibility, just like driving at 17 3/4 is illegal. I'm not saying I would actually want that to be the case, I don't think it's useful myself.
For the same reasons the Royal College of Midwives has adopted a policy of wanting abortion to be removed from criminal law in the UK - because it's not actually a legal problem but a medical one. It falls within the criminal law mainly because of the history of abortion, but that's not in itself a reason to continue that situation.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I don't think we disagree on much to be honest. However and I hesitate to bring it up - this is where I think that organ donation analogy is a bit specious. In that analogy one has to arrive at the conclusion that even a week before birth/the concert - one would be allowed to kill the violinist - or at least that's what I got from it.

No, nobody would be allowed to kill the violinist, they would be allowed to unplug him, i.e. end the pregnancy.

Where the analogy ends is that a week before birth, there's no reason to think the baby would die. I'm unsure why you don't understand that simple biological fact.

If it makes it easier for you, imagine that the violinist would immediately die if unplugged for the first five months or so, but then as his condition improved, his chances of survival even if unplugged before full recovery would begin to improve, and during the last month he might well make an almost full recovery.

Right?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Hotsback made a good point that having a distaste for abortion did not make one not pro choice (sorry for the double negative there). it made me think, but I arrived at the conclusion that like most things labelling probably doesn't help.

I'm not meaning to try and put words into your mouth here but I think you agree that the fetus gains rights at some point. Please correct me there if I'm wrong. I think you're not entirely comfortable on how we'd decide those rights though. This is an entirely different thing to the fetus having no rights until X point ,or maybe it isn't but I don't think a black and white line is useful.

Yeah you're still wrong. Or rather, it can have all the rights anyone wants to grant it, they can worship fetuses, afaiac. What it doesn't have is any right that can be used to deny the woman her human rights. Unless she chooses to forego them - as most pregnant women do, as would know if you'd ever been subjected to the indignity of pregnancy care and birth. :rolleyes:

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

You realize you can't section someone just because they want to do something illegal, right? So no, a court order couldn't. Not unless the person showed signs of mental illness.

Of course, however we've been talking about certain scenarios.

volchitsa wrote: »

No, I'm saying that's a possibility, just like driving at 17 3/4 is illegal. I'm not saying I would actually want that to be the case, I don't think it's useful myself.
For the same reasons the Royal College of Midwives has adopted a policy of wanting abortion to be removed from criminal law in the UK - because it's not actually a legal problem but a medical one. It falls within the criminal law mainly because of the history of abortion, but that's not in itself a reason to continue that situation.

I completely disagree. If it's decided that abortion beyond X is illegal than one needs criminal sanction.

volchitsa wrote: »

No, nobody would be allowed to kill the violinist, they would be allowed to unplug him, i.e. end the pregnancy. Where the analogy ends is that a week before birth, there's no reason to think the baby would die. I'm unsure why you don't understand that simple biological fact.

But if someone needed to stick a tube in his brain and suck it out, that would kill him, no? But fair enough I think we've established the analogy isn't useful - my fault for bringing it up again.

In regard to the biological facts, I'm not sure why you can't see something is being used to illustrate a point however lets call it the V-point. The V-point is designated a s appoint where the baby is viable but has a low chance of survival. Is that fair enough?

volchitsa wrote: »

If it makes it easier for you, imagine that the violinist would immediately die if unplugged for the first five months or so, but then as his condition improved, his chances of survival even if unplugged before full recovery would begin to improve, and during the last month he might well make an almost full recovery.

See the V-point and us departing from this analogy, it just clouds the issue.

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah you're still wrong. Or rather, it can have all the rights anyone wants to grant it, they can worship fetuses, afaiac. What it doesn't have is any right that can be used to deny the woman her human rights. Unless she chooses to forego them - as most pregnant women do, as would know if you'd ever been subjected to the indignity of pregnancy care and birth. :rolleyes:

That's counter to what you've said before.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sorry established the V-point then for got to posit the question!

If a woman decides at the V-point she no longer wants to be pregnant, what is the moral course?

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Of course, however we've been talking about certain scenarios.

No, we haven't, the point about Ms Y was that she was deemed competent to give consent for a c-section, therefore by definition not a scenario where someone can be sectioned. Mental health issues are entirely different and raise other questions unrelated to abortion. It's really not useful to conflate them.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I completely disagree. If it's decided that abortion beyond X is illegal than one needs criminal sanction.

So does that mean you think the current 14 year prison term should be given to women like Deirdre Conroy? Only when none of the pro life personalities like Breda O'Brien and the rest seem prepared to say so, it seems odd for someone who's pro choice to want to imprison women for having abortions?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

But if someone needed to stick a tube in his brain and suck it out, that would kill him, no? But fair enough I think we've established the analogy isn't useful - my fault for bringing it up again.

No idea what you're on about here. An abortion means ending a pregnancy. Killing a fetus is feticide, an entirely different - and separate - procedure.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

In regard to the biological facts, I'm not sure why you can't see something is being used to illustrate a point however lets call it the V-point. The V-point is designated a s appoint where the baby is viable but has a low chance of survival. Is that fair enough?

See the V-point and us departing from this analogy, it just clouds the issue.

Yes but I don't understand what you're asking me. Do I think it would be moral for a woman to decide at this V point that she'd had enough of varicose veins and constipation and wanted the baby out, even though that's likely to end in disability for the child? No I don't.

Do I think that the fact that I think something is immoral means women should be locked up for doing it? No I don't. Lots of people would be locked up for all sorts of things if my morals were to stand as law.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

That's counter to what you've said before.

No it isn't, I made that exact suggestion pages back.

I also said other approaches could be argued, such as sanctions for harm done, I didn't say I'd support it myself. In fact I said I wouldn't. Above.
But it could only be argued in conjunction with laws about future harm done to the resulting child. So fetal alcohol syndrome would also have to be included. I'm unsure that it would be a good thing, overall. But I was just exploring ideas and trying not to refuse something out of hand.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes but I don't understand what you're asking me. Do I think it would be moral for a woman to decide at this V point that she'd had enough of varicose veins and constipation and wanted the baby out, even though that's likely to end in disability for the child? No I don't.

Okay then what is our point of contention? You already believe that at some point the collection cells, whatever one want to call it gains rights, before it has exitied the womb.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

[/B]
Okay then what is our point of contention? You already believe that at some point the collection cells, whatever one want to call it gains rights, before it has exitied the womb.

Not sure what the point is in me repeating this yet again, since you don't seem to want to believe me : not rights that can come in conflict with those of the woman hosting it.

In other words, you or I may not be allowed to punch her in the stomach to kill her fetus, but she is allowed to end the pregnancy.

You, on the other hand, appear to say that a woman who requests a termination at, say, 21 weeks when the legal limit is 18, should be physically restrained to prevent her terminating the pregnancy until whatever time is judged safe for the baby to be born.

How you can think that is much the same opinion as me is beyond me.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure what the point is in me repeating this yet again, since you don't seem to want to believe me : not rights that can come in conflict with those of the woman hosting it.

In other words, you or I may not be allowed to punch her in the stomach to kill her fetus, but she is allowed to end the pregnancy.

You, on the other hand, appear to say that a woman who requests a termination at, say, 21 weeks when the legal limit is 18, should be physically restrained to prevent her terminating the pregnancy until whatever time is judged safe for the baby to be born.

How you can think that is much the same opinion as me is beyond me.

Because it's a conflicting rights issue. You've conceded that point.

I don't know how else to explain it. You've forwarded the points yourself. It's not an unreasonable pro choice position. It's just incompatible with an absolute right of the mother.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Because it's a conflicting rights issue. You've conceded that point.

I don't know how else to explain it. You've forwarded the points yourself. It's not an unreasonable pro choice position. It's just incompatible with an absolute right of the mother.

It's an unreasonable human rights position to advocate the physical restraint of someone who has not been convicted of a crime other than in the most exceptional circumstances. Claiming to do so on behalf of a fetus which has no legal existence is certainly exceptional alright, but would not, I think, convince any Human Rights body that I know of.

So no, you'll have to show me where I ever said what you claim. I didn't.

Hotblack Desiato

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It doesn't negate the rights of the foetus, it simply adds another dimension to the rights of the mother. I'd imagine having to take a baby to term which was the result of a rape would be very damaging to the mental health of the mother. This would have to be considered.

But rape cannot be proven within the timescale in which an abortion can take place, if it can be legally proven at all. The percentage of reported rapes which result in a conviction is tiny and it often takes years.

One scenario is that we accept the word of any woman claiming to have been raped, without further enquiry and with no criminal investigation unless she requests it. This is abortion on demand, or rather, abortion upon telling a lie.

Another scenario is that we actually take these 'I wasn't really raped, but don't want to be pregnant' accusations seriously and a lot of innocent men are going to at best find themselves under criminal investigation, at worst locked up or branded as a sex offender for what was consensual sex.

Neither of these is good.

But what's worse about this is that it creates a false, smug, moralising acceptance of 'good abortions' while continuing to decry 'bad abortions'. Nobody apart from the pregnant woman herself is in a position to judge. She is the one who is pregnant, she must bear the guilt shame and opprobium many in Ireland would wish upon her for aborting, she must also suffer the consequences to her health and circumstances if she continues with the pregnancy.

Either you believe in the absolute right to life of a foetus, or you don't.
If you do, it's morally indefensible to negate that right simply because the foetus was conceived as a result of rape.
If you don't, and I don't, then a woman has an absolute right to choose - at least until the point of viability, where delivery becomes an option to 'terminate' the pregnancy.

robindch

The US, or at least the blue bits of it, are continuing their rollback of abortion with increasing energy.

If passed, a new law in Oklahoma will require the written permission of the foetus' father before an abortion could go ahead:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/oklahoma-abortion-law-wants-women-to-get-the-fathers-written-permission-35436832.html

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

It's an unreasonable human rights position to advocate the physical restraint of someone who has not been convicted of a crime other than in the most exceptional circumstances. Claiming to do so on behalf of a fetus which has no legal existence is certainly exceptional alright, but would not, I think, convince any Human Rights body that I know of.

So no, you'll have to show me where I ever said what you claim. I didn't.

You're missing the point. You've conceded the point that there is conflict of rights here. If I'm misunderstanding you, could clarify your position?

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You're missing the point. You've conceded the point that there is conflict of rights here. If I'm misunderstanding you, could clarify your position?

I've no idea what your issue is, I've said several times that afaiac there is no point during the pregnancy at which the fetus should have rights that can come in conflict with the woman's human rights. I've said that one can argue that the woman may not be allowed to kill the fetus when that entails a separate action from merely ending the pregnancy, i.e., after viability.

How you get from there to suggesting that physically restraining a woman to prevent her from ending a pregnancy is a reasonable position to hold is beyond me. I can only repeat that this would be an egregious abuse of her human rights.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

I've no idea what your issue is, I've said several times that afaiac there is no point during the pregnancy at which the fetus should have rights that can come in conflict with the woman's human rights. I've said that one can argue that the woman may not be allowed to kill the fetus when that entails a separate action from merely ending the pregnancy, i.e., after viability.

How you get from there to suggesting that physically restraining a woman to prevent her from ending a pregnancy is a reasonable position to hold is beyond me. I can only repeat that this would be an egregious abuse of her human rights.

We'll agree to disagree. Your position has been made abundantly clear from your above posts. Your issue is with quantum not with the model.

(Don't worry though I'll bet you Euros to beans no one reads the 3 pages or so of our discussion. Again I'd like to thank you for the discussion, most useful!)

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

We'll agree to disagree. Your position has been made abundantly clear from your above posts. Your issue is with quantum not with the model.

(Don't worry though I'll bet you Euros to beans no one reads the 3 pages or so of our discussion. Again I'd like to thank you for the discussion, most useful!)

We can only agree that you either can't read or are lying.
It's a bit odd when someone tells me what I think, and seems to believe that they know this better than I do. :rolleyes:

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

We can only agree that you either can't read or are lying.
It's a bit odd when someone tells me what I think, and seems to believe that they know this better than I do. :rolleyes:

That's not very nice, and not really fair considering the foregoing. You're unable to clarify your position in general terms, as you did when we first started, without reference too out of context positions I've taken in specific scenarios. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with those positions but you've stated you do believe there is a point when a woman, at least should, morally remain pregnant when she does not wish to.

Have I mischaracterised that point? If I have I'm more than happy to be corrected.