Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

smacl

recedite wrote: »

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

Thing is though, it ain't my tent, an on that basis I don't get to say where it gets pitched

smacl

aloyisious wrote: »

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

I strongly suspect this is the case which in turn makes me entirely cynical of the motives of religious lobby groups that are pushing the pro-life agenda. I don't for a moment accept their bona fides and consider most of their argument weak appeals to the emotion rather then genuine compassion or empathy. I further suspect that very many people share a similar opinion, which is why the pro-life argument is getting far less traction than one would expect of a majority Catholic country.

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

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.

not at all. she has to cede her right to bodily autonomy at a later stage anyway. simply not being aware is not a situation where it could be justified to kill the unborn, as when that child is born and it is asleep it is not aware, and it would not be allowed to kill them in that situation either.

smacl wrote: »

To do so because it offends another persons religious beliefs or archaic conservative sense of morality is worse still.

so we take conservatism and religion out of it, and operate on the basis of humanity, as many of us who would disagree with abortion on demand have no time for religion or conservatism, yet agree that it is not viable to leave the unborn simply at the mercy of the mother once implantation has taken place, that we have to protect the unborn's right to life via the law.

kylith wrote: »

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.

but that is what is happening with every single law which prevents us from legally commiting acts that harm or kill others. they all started with at least 1 person's opinions with others coming to an agreement over time. so there is no reason why this should be different in terms of upholding the unborn's right to life.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

currently there is no real tangible evidence to prove that this is the case.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

yes they do, however sometimes those changes and laws have to be opposed. this is one of the rare occasions where this needs to be done, to protect humanity.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i wouldn't be so uptight and sure of the result. it could go either way. i find being sure about the result of a vote means it goes the other way. brexit and trump being very good examples of me being so sure they wouldn't happen and they did.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

simply not being aware is not a situation where it could be justified to kill the unborn, as when that child is born and it is asleep it is not aware

He did not say "aware" though and you well know it given you have pulled this pretending to misunderstand the point MANY times before.

He said "yet to become self aware" which is a much different thing entirely. You, when asleep, might not be in that moment "aware" but you are an entity that IS self aware.

A sleeping new born is simply not what the user was talking about and, as I said, you well know this. This feigning of ignorance serves no one well, least of all you while doing it.

end of the road wrote: »

so we take conservatism and religion out of it, and operate on the basis of humanity

EXACTLY what I do when it comes to abortion. I work on the basis of humanity. And what I do is I identify the attributes that define humanity. What, beyond mere taxononmy, defines "humanity". Not "human" but "humanity".

And guess what? Not some but ALL the attributes I have found are EXACTLY the attributes that a fetus at 0-16 weeks lacks entirely.

So yes, when it comes to rights and moral and ethical concern I work off the basis of humanity. And since the fetus has none of it, I see no reason to afford it rights or moral and ethical concern.

Hence I am entirely pro choice at that stage. And the only argument you have even attempted to muster against that position, when you deign to reply to my posts rather than dodge them that is, is to pretend that the fetus has a right to become sentient. A position you have defended by nothing but assertion of it.

end of the road wrote: »

brexit and trump being very good examples of me being so sure they wouldn't happen and they did.

Strangely I was 100% sure of Trump, Brexit, Scotish Independance and the Marriage Referendum. I had no doubt which way they would go, and they did.

Being honest, this coming referendum is the first one I can remember where I am not at all sure about the result.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

He did not say "aware" though and you well know it given you have pulled this pretending to misunderstand the point MANY times before.

He said "yet to become self aware" which is a much different thing entirely. You, when asleep, might not be in that moment "aware" but you are an entity that IS self aware.

A sleeping new born is simply not what the user was talking about and, as I said, you well know this. This feigning of ignorance serves no one well, least of all you while doing it.

i don't do anything of the sort. not being self-aware is not an atribute in which we can simply allow human beings to be killed.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

EXACTLY what I do when it comes to abortion. I work on the basis of humanity. And what I do is I identify the attributes that define humanity. What, beyond mere taxononmy, defines "humanity". Not "human" but "humanity".

And guess what? Not some but ALL the attributes I have found are EXACTLY the attributes that a fetus at 0-16 weeks lacks entirely.

So yes, when it comes to rights and moral and ethical concern I work off the basis of humanity. And since the fetus has none of it, I see no reason to afford it rights or moral and ethical concern.

Hence I am entirely pro choice at that stage. And the only argument you have even attempted to muster against that position, when you deign to reply to my posts rather than dodge them that is, is to pretend that the fetus has a right to become sentient. A position you have defended by nothing but assertion of it.



Strangely I was 100% sure of Trump, Brexit, Scotish Independance and the Marriage Referendum. I had no doubt which way they would go, and they did.

Being honest, this coming referendum is the first one I can remember where I am not at all sure about the result.

i don't dodge your posts. the atribute that defines humanity is being a human being, which once the embryo begins to develop, is what that developing entity is, a human being. the atributes you have found are not valid atributes in to which to remove rights from the unborn human beings. the fact it is a human being is enough of a reason to afford it rights or moral and ethical concern and prevent it's killing outside medical necessity.

Delirium

end of the road wrote: »

i don't do anything of the sort. not being self-aware is not an atribute in which we can simply allow human beings to be killed.

you oppose turning off life-support for a brain-dead patient?

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

i don't do anything of the sort. not being self-aware is not an atribute in which we can simply allow human beings to be killed.

Except demonstrably you just did in the post I just moments ago replied to. Not the first time you have claimed not to do something you demonstrably did only moments before alas.

The problem is that without self awareness you are not offering much basis upon which to call them "Human Beings" in the first place. Outside mere biological taxonomy.

The issue you are feigning ignorance of is that NO ONE here wants to be killing "Human Beings". We are all 100% entirely agreed on that point it seems. The actual difference of opinion lies with what constitutes "Human Being". And the fetus at 0-16 weeks for example has none of the attributes I think meaningfully constitute that label. And aside from mere biological taxonomy you have offered none either.

end of the road wrote: »

i don't dodge your posts.

That is simply a proven and demonstrable falsehood though. You have done so on many occasions. You have demonstrated a contrived and very consistent MO of ignoring many posts from me to you, waiting awhile, then replying to posts I write to OTHER people where you use points I rebutted in the posts you dodged and ignored prior.

This is substantiated, proven, and I can provide links to the effect of the lie you are telling here on request, at any time, gladly.

end of the road wrote: »

the atribute that defines humanity is being a human being

That is circular, and reversible too. Much like saying "The attribute that defines Anura is being a frog". You are essentially taking two words for the same thing, and saying that being one defines being the other. This says NOTHING. It is circular nonsense that defines nothing at all.

The attributes that define being a "human being" or having "Humanity" are the same thing, and aside from mere DNA the attributes on that list are PRECISELY the attribute the fetus lacks.

end of the road wrote: »

the atributes you have found are not valid atributes in to which to remove rights from the unborn human beings.

Nice misrepresentation there. I am removing nothing. I have defined NO attributes that remove rights. What I have done is defined the attributes that GIVE rights, and noted the simple fact that the fetus has none of them. Where DO you get all this straw.

PanBrian

I believe life begins at conception and that the intentional killing of a unique human being is wrong in all circumstances.

"Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother's life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother's health, the doctor will induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby's life is never willfully destroyed because the mother's life is in danger."
C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General of the Unites States.

http://prolifephysicians.org/app/?p=62

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Koop was also a paediatric surgeon, so it doesn't surprise me that he never encountered any scenarios where he had to save the life of a pregnant woman.

It's like saying, "In my 36 years as an paramedic, I never encountered a situation where anyone had to jump out of a burning building to survive".

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

Delirium wrote: »

you oppose turning off life-support for a brain-dead patient?

no because they are actually dead. there is no comparison between that situation and the unborn who will be self-aware.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except demonstrably you just did in the post I just moments ago replied to. Not the first time you have claimed not to do something you demonstrably did only moments before alas.

The problem is that without self awareness you are not offering much basis upon which to call them "Human Beings" in the first place. Outside mere biological taxonomy.

The issue you are feigning ignorance of is that NO ONE here wants to be killing "Human Beings". We are all 100% entirely agreed on that point it seems. The actual difference of opinion lies with what constitutes "Human Being". And the fetus at 0-16 weeks for example has none of the attributes I think meaningfully constitute that label. And aside from mere biological taxonomy you have offered none either.



That is simply a proven and demonstrable falsehood though. You have done so on many occasions. You have demonstrated a contrived and very consistent MO of ignoring many posts from me to you, waiting awhile, then replying to posts I write to OTHER people where you use points I rebutted in the posts you dodged and ignored prior.

This is substantiated, proven, and I can provide links to the effect of the lie you are telling here on request, at any time, gladly.



That is circular, and reversible too. Much like saying "The attribute that defines Anura is being a frog". You are essentially taking two words for the same thing, and saying that being one defines being the other. This says NOTHING. It is circular nonsense that defines nothing at all.

The attributes that define being a "human being" or having "Humanity" are the same thing, and aside from mere DNA the attributes on that list are PRECISELY the attribute the fetus lacks.



Nice misrepresentation there. I am removing nothing. I have defined NO attributes that remove rights. What I have done is defined the attributes that GIVE rights, and noted the simple fact that the fetus has none of them. Where DO you get all this straw.

the fact they are human beings is enough for me to be against their killing. for me, supporting abortion on demand and facilitating and allowing it in the country does mean you support the availability of facilities to kill innocent human beings, even if you don't support their killing.

nozzferrahhtoo

PanBrian wrote: »

I believe life begins at conception and that the intentional killing of a unique human being is wrong in all circumstances.

Well then it is lucky we live in a world where things are not true just because you believe them to be true. If however you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that in any way validates your opinion on this matter above the level of mere opinion I would gladly hear it.

PanBrian wrote: »

In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother's life.

Funny I had a doctor who was quite old. I went to him for advice in my college years about an ingrowing toenail. He told me that despite working as a doctor for nearly 35 years I was actually his first ingrowing toenail case.

I suppose since he went 35 years without seeing one, that means it doesnt happen????

PanBrian wrote: »

If toward the end of the pregnancy

But we are generally not talking about "towards the end of the pregnancy" on this thread and on this topic. Over 90% of abortion happens in or before week 12. The near totality, the late 90 percents, by week 16. A point when aside from mere DNA the fetus lacks ANYTHING that could remotely justify seeing it in terms of Humanity and Personhood and moral relevance.

So I am not sure what your quote is even FOR at this point. Maybe you can clarify? Do you think it espouses some relevant position, or rebuts one???

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

the fact they are human beings is enough for me to be against their killing. for me

Well THAT You think that was never in question. So really repeating the position you have soap boxed for weeks is not really moving the conversation forward. It is the BASIS for that position that, when explored, tends to leave you ignoring and dodging posts. Because the sole basis you have managed to invent for my sentience based approach to abortion is to whole sale invent, and repeat, the idea of a "right to become sentient".

end of the road wrote: »

you support the availability of facilities to kill innocent human beings, even if you don't support their killing.

Again your choice to feign ignorance at what peoples points actually are, does nothing but make YOU look bad. It certainly does not rebut their points.

NO ONE on this thread is espousing the positon they want to kill "human beings". What they ARE espousing is that what YOU are calling "human beings" do not appear to justify or warrant that label.

But rather than reply to that point you ignore it, and merely repeat your mis-use of the term. Your usual MO of refusing to engage with a point, and repeating the claim that the point you are ignoring refuted.

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

i don't do anything of the sort. not being self-aware is not an atribute in which we can simply allow human beings to be killed.

`

Ever wonder why we don't call eggs chickens? Why we don't seek shade under the great acorn? Why we don't marvel at how far a tadpole can jump? I'll give you a hint, it's the same reason we don't call human embryos or human fetuses human beings. :rolleyes:

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

the fact they are human beings is enough for me to be against their killing.

It's not a fact, it's your opinion, and nozzferrahhtoo has an opposite opinion, and I don't see how we can ever adjudicate between them...

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well THAT You think that was never in question. So really repeating the position you have soap boxed for weeks is not really moving the conversation forward. It is the BASIS for that position that, when explored, tends to leave you ignoring and dodging posts. Because the sole basis you have managed to invent for my sentience based approach to abortion is to whole sale invent, and repeat, the idea of a "right to become sentient".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

your sentients based approach isn't valid anyway as we don't base human rights on sentients. if we did then anyone who wasn't sentient could be killed or injured at will.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again your choice to feign ignorance at what peoples points actually are, does nothing but make YOU look bad. It certainly does not rebut their points.

NO ONE on this thread is espousing the positon they want to kill "human beings". What they ARE espousing is that what YOU are calling "human beings" do not appear to justify or warrant that label.

But rather than reply to that point you ignore it, and merely repeat your mis-use of the term. Your usual MO of refusing to engage with a point, and repeating the claim that the point you are ignoring refuted.

my use of the term is correct. what i am calling human beings are human beings, factually, taxonomically and scientifically. personhood is a different argument on the other hand. so those human beings do justify and warrent the label human beings, as that is what they are.

smacl wrote: »

`

Ever wonder why we don't call eggs chickens? Why we don't seek shade under the great acorn? Why we don't marvel at how far a tadpole can jump? I'll give you a hint, it's the same reason we don't call human embryos or human fetuses human beings.

no the reason some don't call fetuses human beings dispite them being so, is that they need to dehumanise them so that they can support abortion. eggs, acorns and tadpoles are irrelevant to the discussion.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

It's not a fact, it's your opinion, and nozzferrahhtoo has an opposite opinion, and I don't see how we can ever adjudicate between them...

it is fact they are human beings. what is disputable, and the argument you are trying to have, is about personhood, which there are different opinions on when that begins.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

your sentients based approach isn't valid anyway as we don't base human rights on sentients. if we did then anyone who wasn't sentient could be killed or injured at will.

Firstly my position does not become invalid just because you say it is not. I have presented not just my position but the entire basis for it. And you have refuted none of it. You just run away, ignore the posts, and then claim later you replied to them when you did not.

Secondly what do you even think I mean when I say "sentient"? When you say "anyone who wasn't sentient could be killed or injured at will" who or what are you talking about?

There is a word for people who are not in any way sentient. It is "dead". When is that last time you knew a dead person who was subsequently killed? Or are you contriving at this point to not make any sense?

But it IS sentience (not sentients, perhaps the fact you can not spell the word is linked to your also not seeming to know what it means either) that we use to form rights, mediate rights, and to which we assign rights. And if morals and ethics are not in the business of mediating the actions and well being of sentient creatures then I am agog to hear you tell me what they ARE for and what they ARE doing. Regale us, please do.

end of the road wrote: »

my use of the term is correct. what i am calling human beings are human beings, factually, taxonomically and scientifically. personhood is a different argument on the other hand. so those human beings do justify and warrent the label human beings, as that is what they are.

More of your argument from assertion fallacy where you think calling things correct makes them correct, and calling them invalid makes them valid. Your argument only becomes correct if you can show it to be so, not because you can declare it to be so.

Perhaps a dictionary can help you out in learning not just THAT your use of the term is incorrect, but WHY. Here we go:

"Human Being": a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

A fetus is a not a man, women or child. It does not have superior mental development, the power of speech of any kind let alone articular, and it certainly does not have n upright stance. So you are.... wait for it...... wrong, wrong and wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Wow.

But when you are not equivocating over words you are still wrong, because you have not offered any arguments (let alone valid ones) about why "Human beings" should have rights, by any definition. You say "personhood" is a different argument, but it is essentially the same one. Because it is essentially person hood, not mere DNA, we are ascribing rights to. DNA does not get rights, and there is a reason for that.

end of the road wrote: »

no the reason some don't call fetuses human beings dispite them being so, is that they need to dehumanise them so that they can support abortion. eggs, acorns and tadpoles are irrelevant to the discussion.

Yeah you tried that "it is not relevant to the discussion" dodge on some of the points you could not answer from me too in the past. But the fact here is that one can not pour water out of an empty glass. Meaning: One can not dehumanize that which you have not provided the FIRST shred of argument to humanize in the first place.

Your sole attempt to humanize it was to invent, and then run away from discussion about, a concept that things have a right to become sentient.

aloyisious

I'm reading, and writing, an I/Indo report on yesterdays SC hearing of the state's appeal of Judge Humphreys ruling in the case of the Nigerian man who had appealed the MOJ's decision NOT to grant him citizenship on the basis of his daughter being born here. The Nigerian man and his partner sought to revoke a 2008 deportation order based on his prospective parentage of an Irish citizen child.

Potted case history:..... The Man came to Ireland in 2007. The report said the case involved the man, his Irish partner and their child born in 2105 and I must believe that latter refers to the case before Mt Justice Humphreys but still connected to the original 2007 application and 2008 denial of application and deportation order. I do not know what happened the prospective unborn in the deportation case from back in 2007/2008.

................................................................................................................................................................................

Yesterday the state's counsel was repeatedly pressed by Mr Justice F Clarke about it's position on the "important" and "live" issue of the extent of the constitutional rights of the unborn. Ms Butler said she was instructed the minister considered the issue had not been definitively decided. The state's position was that before 1983 there was no recognition of legal personality of an unborn at common law. While it did not follow that the unborn had no right to life before 1983, there was no recognized constitutional personality.

Although various judges before 1983 made observations concerning the unborn, a lot of what was said was about "respect for human life" which was different from the concept of individual rights holders.

The 8th amendment was intended to treat the unborn in a "different category" and not as a person, citizen or child. It does not follow from it's [sic:presumably the 8th] enactment that the unborn has a legal personality, she [Ms Butler] said.

..........................................................................................................................................................................

There were respondents to Ms Butler and they argued that the essential question is whether the state is correct that, outside the 8th amendment, the unborn is constitutionally "invisible" OR a "nullity". They say the unborn has rights to the care and company of her father which the minister must consider when considering to revoke the deportation order [sic:presumably currently or in a fresh look at the deportation order]. I DO NOT know if there has been a new deportation order made since 2008.

The report had Mr Justice Humphreys finding that the minister was required, when considering the revocation application, to consider the rights of the unborn. He held the unborn has constitutional rights beyond the right to life and is a "child" within the meaning of Article 42A, inserted as a result of the 2012 Childrens Referendum which requires the state to protect and vindicate the rights of "all children".

It is that finding that the state is appealing on the grounds that the unborn has the right to life but no other constitutional "rights" which the minister must consider in the context of a revocation application. The prospective parentage is a "circumstance" that may be considered but the minister is not required to consider "rights" of the unborn before birth. The state's case is that the constitution does not contain any reference or recognition of the unborn having a personality or being a person, citizen or child.......

It seem's from the above that the SC may have to rule if the constitution recognizes the unborn as something without personality, not a person, citizen or child or it might just rule that Mr Justice Humphreys was wrong in law in his decision, strike it down and give it's reasoning later.

Historical Note on Justice Ministers 2007/2008: MOJ's......

31.
Michael McDowell
6 June 2002
14 June 2007
Progressive Democrats

32.
Brian Lenihan, Jnr
14 June 2007
7 May 2008
Fianna Fáil

33.
Dermot Ahern
7 May 2008
23 March 2010
Fianna Fáil

aloyisious

Interesting interviews on the Seán O'Rourke show of two women living in N/I of what they think about abortion becoming legal in the south if the law is changed by the referendum result.

One of the women is a GP, is opposed to abortion and said there will be a dozen buses coming south for anti-abortion rallies.

The other woman is pro-choice and commented [in reply to question] how it would be diferent for women to be travelling south for abortions as the law here would be similar to the UK [or words to that effect] and women from the south would not have to travel on planes or boats for abortions. I think she mentioned N/I women could then travel by car for abortions down here.

One mention was made about women from the south travelling north to get FFA abortions in N//I, though I'm not sure which of the women made the comment. For an exact hearing/listening-to the interviews of both women to be certain which one made which comment/reply, one will have to go to the RTE playback system [probably wrong title for service] go to the S O'Rourke show for today & find the interviews [probably under the 8th or abortion] on the show's time/topic list.

aloyisious

The Save8.ie group are getting the hang of advertisement-wording now, more Ads on the Bray billboards. The one with the woman's story-line mentioned is still off-key where it comes to relating a story, look at the wording from the start. I have no idea where the image of the baby is from.

aloyisious

The irish Examiner is running a dual item story that the SC is to make it's decision on the Govt's appeal on Mr Justice Humphreys ruling public in Limerick tomorrow and that the Govt want the Dail to sit this Friday to debate the wording of the referendum on the 8th.

The bishops have made a statement on the 8th and the unborn.... https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/bishops-say-repeal-of-8th-effectively-says-that-unborn-children-do-not-exist-831148.html

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

yes they do, however sometimes those changes and laws have to be opposed. this is one of the rare occasions where this needs to be done, to protect humanity.

Same argument put forward by people against marriage equality, except they lied a little more and added children into the mix.

If you really believed a fetus was so important you'd lobby the state to ban travel for abortion and to make it against the law to drink or smoke during pregnancy... After all, you wouldn't give a cigarette to a 5 tear old would you?

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

If you really believed a fetus was so important you'd lobby the state to ban travel for abortion and to make it against the law to drink or smoke during pregnancy.

Whatever about the merits or otherwise of the basic arguments, there's certainly no shortage of cognitive dissonance amongst the anti-abortion crew who, as many people have pointed out, seem most interested in people in the abstract, rather than the messier business of people in the concrete.

BTW, for anybody interested, there's an anti-abortion walk in Dublin this Saturday - main site and facebook page - starting in Parnell Square at 14:00 and presumably walking to Kildare Street.

pleas advice

Cabaal wrote: »

Same argument put forward by people against marriage equality, except they lied a little more and added children into the mix.

If you really believed a fetus was so important you'd lobby the state to ban travel for abortion and to make it against the law to drink or smoke during pregnancy... After all, you wouldn't give a cigarette to a 5 tear old would you?

I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere...

Pherekydes

pleas advice wrote: »

I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere...

I think you mean, "I wish there was a logical fallacy in there."