Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I am talking about the view that it's a good and welcome thing for society if the number of people with Downs is reduced by aborting pregnancies where Downs is diagnosed.

Nope. The number of people with Downs can only ever be reduced by someone with Downs dying. Abortion has no impact on this. You're making an amortised calculation that seeks to hold the percentage of people born with Downs. This is preferring someone yet to be born to be disabled as a favour to those who already are. This is nonsensical as being born without Downs is clearly positive for the newborn, while being born with Downs is of no benefit to the existing population with Downs.

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

Worth remembering that laws change as society evolves.

yes, and while for the most part it's a good thing, we have finally come to one area where this could be a huge problem if the 8th is repealed.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So Peregrinus you admit nobody in this country never mind this forum is advocating that position but you thought you'd lob the grenade in there anyway.

FUD of the lowest order.

The rest of your post is just self serving waffle.

none of us can say that nobody in this country is, or isn't advocating such a position. so Peregrinus is correct to post what he has stated, which is nothing compared to what you have claimed he stated.

lazygal wrote: »

Most people having abortions are not doing so because they don't want a baby with down syndrome.
They just don't want to be pregnant. Down syndrome is an obsession of the anti choice side. There are a host of other chromosone disorders which can show up and mean someone chooses an abortion.
And Down Syndrome Ireland have asked everyone to stop focusing on their children. I don't speak for LGBTQI people but I'd imagine their various representative groups wouldn't take kindly to the notion that we remove choice from pregnant people in their name.

Down Syndrome Ireland asking everyone to stop focusing on their children is simply an opinion, which there is no obligation to agree to, and correctly people aren't agreeing to it given the increased risk of unborn babies with the condition being aborted.
representative groups can have a problem with whatever they like but they don't speak for everyone and they are not an authority, so we can bring other people into the discussion where relevant. pregnant people aren't entitled to the choice to have an abortion, if it's given it's only ever a discretionary availability, that can be taken away at any time. however it's better to have a situation where it can't be availible within the state unless it's for medically necessary reasons.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

This is nonsensical as being born without Downs is clearly positive for the newborn.

You're not talking about curing them though. There's a big difference between curing and culling, even if the overall impact on numbers is the same; ie fewer of whatever it is.

You're making a big deal about the fact that the culling would occur before birth. So in your mind, this means the culling never happens, but the beneficial result on numbers does happen.
Its like a magical perpetual motion machine. No troublesome inputs, but you still get to reap all your benefits on the output side of the equation.

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

however it's better to have a situation where it can't be availible within the state unless it's for medically necessary reasons.

All abortions are medically necessary. I will not take on the risks of pregnancy and birth unless I choose to. The medical issues are far too serious.

aloyisious

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, just to clarify - the requirement of any constitutional referendum is to ask voters whether they approve a proposal to amend the constitution with only "Yes" or "No" answers in response to it.

It's not possible to have multiple-choice referendums, or "Yes, if the other one passes" type questions.

The ballot paper will say:

"Do you approve of the proposal to amend the constitution contained in the undermentioned bill?

---

Thirty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018

---

[] Yes [] No"

And that's it.

Citizens will be asked whether they want to retain the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution - that enshrines equal rights for the mother and unborn - or repeal it and replace it with an enabling provision that allows the Dáil to legislate on the issue, Mr Varadkar said. Simon Harris's statements on any change voted in by us is the same, that we give the Oireachtas the right to make abortion law.

The referendum won't simply be: do you approve or disapprove the deletion of the 8th amendment...... the words above will also be put to us to decide on. That is what I meant when I wrote that the referendum question will be a two-parter.

end of the road

lazygal wrote: »

All abortions are medically necessary. I will not take on the risks of pregnancy and birth unless I choose to. The medical issues are far too serious.

i would have to disagree, all abortions would not be medically necessary, many are unnecessary and are had for lifestyle and convenience reasons.
cases of FFA, cases where the mother's life is under threat or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability are medically necessary abortions, and should be provided in the state. abortion because one doesn't want to be pregnant is lifestyle/convenience abortion and is not a medically necessary abortion, and has no requirement to be provided in the state.

aloyisious wrote: »

Citizens will be asked whether they want to retain the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution - that enshrines equal rights for the mother and unborn - or repeal it and replace it with an enabling provision that allows the Dáil to legislate on the issue, Mr Varadkar said. Simon Harris's statements on any change voted in by us is the same, that we give the Oireachtas the right to make abortion law.

The referendum won't simply be: do you approve or disapprove the deletion of the 8th amendment...... the words above will also be put to us to decide on. That is what I meant when I wrote that the referendum question will be a two-parter.

so essentially we would be asked do we agree to repeal the 8th. and then do we agree to allow the government to legislate on the issue. i can see a problem with that. what if repeal of the 8th is passed but the question to allow government to legislate isn't? that's why i can't see it being a 2 parter myself.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

all abortions would not be medically necessary, many are unnecessary and are had for lifestyle and convenience reasons.
cases of FFA, cases where the mother's life is under threat or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability are medically necessary abortions, and should be provided in the state. abortion because one doesn't want to be pregnant is lifestyle/convenience abortion and is not a medically necessary abortion, and has no requirement to be provided in the state.

Would you agree to a woman taking an abortifacient pill then so she can stop a pregnancy she does NOT want {for whatever undisclosed reason] her body is starting and which, if not stopped, she would naturally have to bear for 9 months?.

Do you keep in mind that you do not know the convenience reason you mention in respect of abortion behind the woman's decision?

Bear in mind that the state would not be providing the means of the abortion.

seamus

aloyisious wrote: »

The referendum won't simply be: do you approve or disapprove the deletion of the 8th amendment...... the words above will also be put to us to decide on. That is what I meant when I wrote that the referendum question will be a two-parter.

Here's a good example of what it'll look like:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2015/615/b6a15d.pdf

You're right that the bill will likely contain two parts; delete one section, and add a new section.

But there will only be one question - do you approve the bill? If the answer is "Yes", both things happen. If the answer is "No", nothing will happen.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you agree to a woman taking an abortifacient pill then so she can stop a pregnancy she does NOT want {for whatever undisclosed reason] her body is starting and which, if not stopped, she would naturally have to bear for 9 months?.

Do you keep in mind that you do not know the convenience reason you mention in respect of abortion behind the woman's decision?

Bear in mind that the state would not be providing the means of the abortion.

assuming you are referring to the map i would not consider that an abortifacient. it stops implantation in the first place. however once implantation happens and the development begins then no abortion unless genuinely medically necessary.

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

assuming you are referring to the map i would not consider that an abortifacient. it stops implantation in the first place. however once implantation happens and the development begins then no abortion unless genuinely medically necessary.

All abortion is medically necessary. Pregnancy and birth can be lethal and no one should be forced through that without their consent.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

i would have to disagree, all abortions would not be medically necessary, many are unnecessary and are had for lifestyle and convenience reasons.
cases of FFA, cases where the mother's life is under threat or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability are medically necessary abortions, and should be provided in the state. abortion because one doesn't want to be pregnant is lifestyle/convenience abortion and is not a medically necessary abortion, and has no requirement to be provided in the state.



so essentially we would be asked do we agree to repeal the 8th. and then do we agree to allow the government to legislate on the issue. i can see a problem with that. what if repeal of the 8th is passed but the question to allow government to legislate isn't? that's why i can't see it being a 2 parter myself.

I don't know how the govt is going to get past that wording conundrum but it might provide us with two separate forms to mark when we turn up at the polling station with our voting cards. We are often asked to vote on separate questions in referedums.

The Govt, through Leo and Simon and the AG, have clearly stated that if we vote to delete the 8th amendment that the wording spoken of by Leo and Simon Harris would authorise the Oireachtas to legislate on abortion.

It would, IMO, be very presumptive of them to assume that merely by us deleting the 8th we gave them the right to so legislate. Surely we must be given the right to so approve by a question and not merely by default, or do you think that would be OK with you?

EDIT take a look at Seamus's last post above on the answer: the addition of a new section to the constitution to replace what we voted to delete. I hope you will take your time to respond to my posts. My keyboard is resisting my efforts to use the letters a, c, e, f, and n when writing.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

assuming you are referring to the map i would not consider that an abortifacient. it stops implantation in the first place. however once implantation happens and the development begins then no abortion unless genuinely medically necessary.

No. The pill is what I meant. I am aware that the pill is formulated for use within a time-frame advised by it's maker as a preventive to stop unplanned pregnanies occurring after an "after the night before" sexual encounter. Humans do have a willingness to hope medicines work outside the advice letters supplied with said medicines and items....

Meantime, back to the referendum and calls by people from the anti-abortion campaign for it to be cancelled [on the basis of RedC'S Citizens Assembly membership selection processes] RTE's reported that the Supreme Court seem's to have concluded it's hearing on the state's case before it for a legal evaluation and ruling on Judge Humphrey's High Court ruling on the Nigerian immigrant case. We'll have to wait for the SC to give it's decision sometime soon, maybe tomorrow, maybe next week......

smacl

recedite wrote: »

You're not talking about curing them though. There's a big difference between curing and culling, even if the overall impact on numbers is the same; ie fewer of whatever it is.

You're making a big deal about the fact that the culling would occur before birth. So in your mind, this means the culling never happens, but the beneficial result on numbers does happen.
Its like a magical perpetual motion machine. No troublesome inputs, but you still get to reap all your benefits on the output side of the equation.

You got it Rec, for culling to happen you'd need to have people to cull. A fetus is not a person. And FWIW, vaccinations aren't cures either. The pro-life side would seem to think that Downs is somehow desirable, something we should be keen to retain. For your religious bedfellows I can get it on the basis of God's will, inshallah, etc... but I struggle to see why an atheist would take this tack.

As an aside, I'd be interested in hearing what point in the fertilisation, implantation, embryo, gestation period you think a person comes into being and why?

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

Down Syndrome Ireland asking everyone to stop focusing on their children is simply an opinion, which there is no obligation to agree to, and correctly people aren't agreeing to it given the increased risk of unborn babies with the condition being aborted.

It is not an opinion at all, it is an entirely reasonable request. Choosing to ignore such a request to further your own agenda is both hateful and pathetic.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

You got it Rec, for culling to happen you'd need to have people to cull. A fetus is not a person. And FWIW, vaccinations aren't cures either. The pro-life side would seem to think that Downs is somehow desirable, something we should be keen to retain. For your religious bedfellows I can get it on the basis of God's will, inshallah, etc... but I struggle to see why an atheist would take this tack.

As an aside, I'd be interested in hearing what point in the fertilisation, implantation, embryo, gestation period you think a person comes into being and why?

Nobody has said DS is desirable. Just that its not a hanging offence. Also I don't think my religious buddies have any specific commandment on the divine protection of DS people? They are just treating them as fellow humans.

FWIW, I don't believe there is any specific point at which full human rights should be assigned. Just a spectrum along which the developing person is deserving of more and more respect.
If this proposed referendum passes, all human rights will be stripped away, right up until the moment a baby takes its first breath of air.

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

Nobody has said DS is desirable. Just that its not a hanging offence. Also I don't think my religious buddies have any specific commandment on the divine protection of DS people? They are just treating them as fellow humans.

FWIW, I don't believe there is any specific point at which full human rights should be assigned. Just a spectrum along which the developing person is deserving of more and more respect.
If this proposed referendum passes, all human rights will be stripped away, right up until the moment a baby takes its first breath of air.

Northern Ireland has no constitutional protection for a foetus. Yet manages to force people elsewhere for abortions.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

I don't know how the govt is going to get past that wording conundrum but it might provide us with two separate forms to mark when we turn up at the polling station with our voting cards. We are often asked to vote on separate questions in referedums.

The Govt, through Leo and Simon and the AG, have clearly stated that if we vote to delete the 8th amendment that the wording spoken of by Leo and Simon Harris would authorise the Oireachtas to legislate on abortion.

It would, IMO, be very presumptive of them to assume that merely by us deleting the 8th we gave them the right to so legislate. Surely we must be given the right to so approve by a question and not merely by default, or do you think that would be OK with you?

EDIT take a look at Seamus's last post above on the answer: the addition of a new section to the constitution to replace what we voted to delete. I hope you will take your time to respond to my posts. My keyboard is resisting my efforts to use the letters a, c, e, f, and n when writing.

no i'd rather the 2 questions myself. what i was doing was pondering the possibility of what would happen if the first part (repealing the 8th) was passed but not the second.

smacl wrote: »

It is not an opinion at all, it is an entirely reasonable request. Choosing to ignore such a request to further your own agenda is both hateful and pathetic.

it's not hateful. ds babies have a right to live as much as anyone else. they are at increased risk of abortion.

end of the road

lazygal wrote: »

All abortion is medically necessary.

no only some are.

lazygal wrote: »

Pregnancy and birth can be lethal and no one should be forced through that without their consent.

they are being prevented from killing the unborn within the state rather then being forced through anything. one does not have a right to kill the unborn outside extreme reasons within ireland.

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

no only some are.



they are being prevented from killing the unborn within the state rather then being forced through anything. one does not have a right to kill the unborn outside extreme reasons within ireland.

All abortions are for medical reasons.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

no only some are.



they are being prevented from killing the unborn within the state rather then being forced through anything. one does not have a right to kill the unborn outside extreme reasons within ireland.

So a rewording of the above might end with it reading as - pregnant women have no option but to go through a full term pregnancy without any killing of the unborn within their wombs excepting for a lawful medically recognized and approved necessity of killing said unborn to save the life of the woman?

Edit:add-on..... Re your [i'd rather the 2 questions myself. what i was doing was pondering the possibility of what would happen if the first part (repealing the 8th) was passed but not the second] the deletion result would probably be declared null and void on the "all or nothing" basis of referedum results. Otherwise we'd be going back to the courts.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

So a rewording of the above might end with it reading as - pregnant women have no option but to go through a full term pregnancy without any killing of the unborn within their wombs excepting for a lawful medically recognized and approved necessity of killing said unborn to save the life of the woman?

or cases of FFA or cases where the mother would become permanently injured or disabled. but yes other then that no abortion.

aloyisious wrote: »

Edit:add-on..... Re your [i'd rather the 2 questions myself. what i was doing was pondering the possibility of what would happen if the first part (repealing the 8th) was passed but not the second] the deletion result would probably be declared null and void on the "all or nothing" basis of referedum results. Otherwise we'd be going back to the courts.

yes, i'd agree that sounds like the likely outcome. thank you.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Nobody has said DS is desirable. Just that its not a hanging offence. Also I don't think my religious buddies have any specific commandment on the divine protection of DS people? They are just treating them as fellow humans.

Quite so, and nobody is being hung for it unless you happen to part of the 'every sperm is sacred' brigade.

FWIW, I don't believe there is any specific point at which full human rights should be assigned. Just a spectrum along which the developing person is deserving of more and more respect.
If this proposed referendum passes, all human rights will be stripped away, right up until the moment a baby takes its first breath of air.

That's problematic when you think about it, because if you don't assign human rights at birth, which is the latest point at which most people assign them, you have to nominate a time at some after the sperm hits the ovum to do so. For example, Catholic doctrine places it at conception and holds that the morning after pill thus constitutes abortion. If you don't hold with this, and think the morning after pill is ok, that means you've drawn a mental line in the sand later into the gestation period where it is not ok. Similarly, if you find a first trimester abortion somehow less problematic than a later abortion, you consider the first trimester fetus less of a person at that point in time with consequently fewer rights.

Like yourself, I don't for a moment believe there is a specific point where this happens, but outside of religious or purely emotional reasons, I can't think of any reason why we should consider a fetus that has yet to develop a functional brain to be a person. To suggest that a woman cede her right to bodily autonomy to a fetus that has yet to become self aware in any sense to my mind seems entirely barbaric. To do so because it offends another persons religious beliefs or archaic conservative sense of morality is worse still.

Loafing Oaf

smacl wrote: »

outside of religious or purely emotional reasons, I can't think of any reason why we should consider a fetus that has yet to develop a functional brain to be a person.

But do you accept that this is ultimately a matter of ethical judgement rather than scientific fact and that if someone decides that a new 'person' comes into existence at the point of fertilisation, that cannot be 'disproved' by science?

kylith

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But do you accept that this is ultimately a matter of ethical judgement rather than scientific fact and that if someone decides that a new 'person' comes into existence at the point of fertilisation, that cannot be 'disproved' by science?

It can’t be disproved as it is a matter of opinion. However there is no reason that one person’s opinion should be used to limit someone who does not share that opinion.

seamus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But do you accept that this is ultimately a matter of ethical judgement rather than scientific fact and that if someone decides that a new 'person' comes into existence at the point of fertilisation, that cannot be 'disproved' by science?

It depends on what their definition of "person" is, surely?

It is absolutely possible to scientifically disprove, or dismiss as irrational, someone's definition of a "person". For example, "it has human DNA" is a definition that applies to any human cells of any kind. Therefor for that to be the definition of a "person" is irrational.

The problem in this debate is people believing that it's possible to draw a hard line, a point at which personhood exists. Those who do believe in a hard line are either injecting made-up nonsense like "a soul" or are just ignorant of how the foetus develops.

Like a lot of medicine, it's a game of statistics and probabilities. That is, "95% of foetuses will possess trait X between Y and Z weeks of gestation".

People don't like this. It makes them uncomfortable to think that deciding whether a foetus is human or not is down to estimates, but that's the reality.

And if trait X is what makes it a "person", then "most" foetuses will become people between Y and Z weeks, and before Y weeks, "most" are not people, even though some may be.

It's a bit like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We can't say exactly when a foetus has become a person without potentially killing it, but we can estimate it to within a high level of accuracy.

Loafing Oaf

seamus wrote: »

It depends on what their definition of "person" is, surely?

And that in itself is ultimately a matter of opinion, in my...opinion...'Personhood' is not an objective scientific reality but an ethical category that humans impose and therefore a moveable feast...

I remember the first sustained discussion of abortion I ever encountered, a booklet by pro-choice doctor Andrew Rynne. He was honest enough to acknowledge that science could never hope to answer the core question of whether the embryo/foetus was a person/human being...

smacl

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But do you accept that this is ultimately a matter of ethical judgement rather than scientific fact and that if someone decides that a new 'person' comes into existence at the point of fertilisation, that cannot be 'disproved' by science?

Not really, no. If we use the term 'person' at a fundamental level in our constitution and in the laws of our land it demands we have an unambiguous definition of the term. A person, as I understand it refers to someone who has been born and is alive, for example a pregnant woman. There is no argument here. Even the Pope in his munificence allows that the pregnant woman is a person. Whether or not the freshly fertilised ovum, embryo or the fetus is a person or not is a matter of conjecture, speculation and divided opinion. Opinion does not and should not carry the same weight as undisputed fact. The suggestion that an embryo should enjoy the same personal rights as a pregnant woman is utter nonsense on this basis.

Now if we were to seek to define the unborn as people, we would need to define objectively what we mean by the term person in this instance, e.g. survivable outside of the womb, certain levels of brain activity etc.. Without this definition we're back to banning the contraceptive pill for example, and the morning after pill is certainly a no-no. Bottom line is that we can't reasonably afford human rights to a person until such time as we define unambiguously what we mean by the word person. The ethics, philosophy, voodoo and other various religious influences come into play in arriving at this definition, but I'd guess that finally it comes down to consensus.

aloyisious

smacl wrote: »

. The ethics, philosophy, voodoo and other various religious influences come into play in arriving at this definition, but I'd guess that finally it comes down to consensus.

Which seem's to be where we are RIGHT NOW in terms of consensus to the wording of our constitution in respect to the right to life of the unborn, by guidance solely [for better or worse, opinion-wise] of a Christian ethos.

So, to some, the essence of the forthcoming referendum is unchristian, maybe even heretical.

It likely explains, due to that opinion, their complete opposition to abortion in all cases and viewing all those who assent to any level of abortion as totally non-christian or unchristian, regardless of the OP's personal religious and/or other beliefs.

Hotblack Desiato

The 8th isn't a christian ethos though, but a specifically Roman Catholic one.

All other churches opposed the 8th in 1983 and/or said it was a matter for the individual voter's conscience. Hypocritical to say the least that some of them who were 'meh' at the time are now opposing its repeal.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

For example, Catholic doctrine places it at conception and holds that the morning after pill thus constitutes abortion. If you don't hold with this, and think the morning after pill is ok, that means you've drawn a mental line in the sand later into the gestation period where it is not ok.

There can be more than one line drawn in the sand. For example, according to Irish law (not RC doctrine) an embryo is deserving of some undefined measure of "respect" by virtue of being human, but does not enjoy the same 8th amendment type protection that it would have post-implantation.

smacl wrote: »

Like yourself, I don't for a moment believe there is a specific point where this happens, but outside of religious or purely emotional reasons, I can't think of any reason why we should consider a fetus that has yet to develop a functional brain to be a person...

Even then, how would you decide when the brain was fully functional so that full human rights would kick in. I presume you agree this would happen some time before birth; ie at least some of the unborn are deserving of the kind of human rights protection that the 8th amendment provides?
Would you consider DS, or severely mentally handicapped people to have a fully functional brain?

There is probably no real difference in principle between your position and mine. Its just a question of "how big is your tent".