Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

volchitsa

pleas advice wrote: »

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

There is. A fetus is not a person and its possible interests should not override the right to personal autonomy of an actual person.

That's also the objection to the 8th amendment, so it's perfectly reasonable to illustrate the fallacy with other examples which point up that contradiction in our laws.

We remove a woman's right to protect her health for the sake of the fetus, but not her right to damage her health for its sake. Bit odd, surely?

pleas advice

Tu quoque?

ohnonotgmail

pleas advice wrote: »

Tu quoque?

well no. In order for that to be true you would have to put forward some actual criticism of your own. You merely asked if there was a logical fallacy and failed to identify what it might be.

pleas advice

It was a bit of an appeal to emotion, a bit of a slippery slope argument (if you would do X, you must necessarily do Y and Z)

ohnonotgmail

pleas advice wrote: »

It was a bit of an appeal to emotion, a bit of a slippery slope argument (if you would do X, you must necessarily do Y and Z)

you need to make up your mind about the point you are trying to make. assuming you have one.

pleas advice

"Im sure there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere" was my point. 'If you believe a fetus should not be killed you must also stop pregnant women smoking' is a logical fallacy, I'm sure.

ohnonotgmail

pleas advice wrote: »

"Im sure there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere" was my point. 'If you believe a fetus should not be killed you must also stop pregnant women smoking' is a logical fallacy, I'm sure.

assertion is not enough. you need to explain you think it is a logical fallacy.

pauldla

pleas advice wrote: »

"Im sure there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere" was my point. 'If you believe a fetus should not be killed you must also stop pregnant women smoking' is a logical fallacy, I'm sure.

It rests on how one sees the foetus, does it not? If it truly is a very very very very small person that is complexly at the mercy of the host carrier, then should not the protection afforded to that foetus extend to ensuring the host carrier does not endanger it with such activities as smoking, drinking, etc?

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

There is. A fetus is not a person and its possible interests should not override the right to personal autonomy of an actual person.

That's also the objection to the 8th amendment, so it's perfectly reasonable to illustrate the fallacy with other examples which point up that contradiction in our laws.

We remove a woman's right to protect her health for the sake of the fetus, but not her right to damage her health for its sake. Bit odd, surely?

a fetus is a human being however, and its possible interests does rightly override the want and wish of someone to kill it for lifestyle, convenience and contraceptive reasons.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

a fetus is a human being however, and its possible interests does rightly override the want and wish of someone to kill it for lifestyle, convenience and contraceptive reasons.

Unless that someone wants to get on a boat or plane, in which case you think the potential inconvenience to third parties overrides all interests and rights of the foetus.

It's an interesting hierarchy of rights where the right to bodily autonomy can be trumped by the unborn's right to life, but that right to life is secondary to someone else's right not to be inconvenienced.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

a fetus is a human being however, and its possible interests does rightly override the want and wish of someone to kill it for lifestyle, convenience and contraceptive reasons.

Doesn't that depend on how you define human being?

Loafing Oaf

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

assertion is not enough. you need to explain you think it is a logical fallacy.

recedite

pleas advice wrote: »

It was a bit of an appeal to emotion, a bit of a slippery slope argument (if you would do X, you must necessarily do Y and Z)

I'd go for "strawman" fallacy as well (the smoking infant you were giving the cigarettes to)

Ally Dick

After the Supreme Court ruling, we'll have infanticide in place by autumn

aloyisious

Ally Dick wrote: »

After the Supreme Court ruling, we'll have infanticide in place by autumn

Umm, personally I think there will be a harder fight to convince the voting public to vote out the 8th than there was to vote in marriage equality. Your positivity that the 8th will be gone in May is greater than mine.

Pherekydes

Ally Dick wrote: »

After the Supreme Court ruling, we'll have infanticide in place by autumn

Whatever happens in May there will be no infanticide in the Autumn.

The days of the Bon Secours Mother and baby home are long past.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

a fetus is a human being however, and its possible interests does rightly override the want and wish of someone to kill it for lifestyle, convenience and contraceptive reasons.

Would the other reasons the state allows for legal abortion be OK with you or do you believe the pregnant woman must die instead of or as well as the foetus?

I don't understand your mention of "possible interests" when it comes to a fetus as it seem's to indicate you have doubts about the existance of them. If it doesn't have existing interests, then, logcially, it can't be claimed to have pre-eminent rights over those of the woman in whose womb it is existing.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

Would the other reasons the state allows for legal abortion be OK with you or do you believe the pregnant woman must die instead of or as well as the foetus?

I don't understand your mention of "possible interests" when it comes to a fetus as it seem's to indicate you have doubts about the existance of them. If it doesn't have existing interests, then, logcially, it can't be claimed to have pre-eminent rights over those of the woman in whose womb it is existing.

the only cases where i support abortion are where the mother's life is in danger, she is under threat of permanent injury or disability, cases of FFA or other reasons where the baby will not survive to term or cannot be viably caried to term.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

the only cases where i support abortion are where the mother's life is in danger, she is under threat of permanent injury or disability, cases of FFA or other reasons where the baby will not survive to term or cannot be viably caried to term.

And yet you oppose repeal which is the only way we can change our laws to allow for abortion in the cases of "permanent injury or disability, cases of FFA or other reasons where the baby will not survive to term or cannot be viably caried to term".

And before you say it:

1) No, these circumstances can't be allowed under the 8th at present, and
2) No, we can't change our constitution to properly cover these scenarios.

aloyisious

The Iona Institute, or some body claiming to be the institute, have a video on Facebook claiming that in Britain each year there are almost 200,000 abortions and that 1 pregnancy in 5 ends in abortion and that the [sic; Irish] Govt wants us to go even further than the British Abortion Law. There is a sentence written in red on the bottom right of the video whih reads as follows [the data in this video are from official UK sources]

The promo wording before the video reads "out new video sets out the deadly and deeply immoral nature of Britain's abortion law. Our Government wants our law to go even further". The video ends with "for more information go to www.ionainstitute.ie....

Link..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr_lw9bRZXQ

Ally Dick

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm, personally I think there will be a harder fight to convince the voting public to vote out the 8th than there was to vote in marriage equality. Your positivity that the 8th will be gone in May is greater than mine.

I hope you are right and I am wrong

smacl

pleas advice wrote: »

It was a bit of an appeal to emotion, a bit of a slippery slope argument (if you would do X, you must necessarily do Y and Z)

Rather ironic, given that the entire pro-life argument and advertising campaign seems to be built entirely on appeal to emotion.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

The Iona Institute, or some body claiming to be the institute, have a video on Facebook claiming that in Britain each year there are almost 200,000 abortions and that 1 pregnancy in 5 ends in abortion and that the [sic; Irish] Govt wants us to go even further than the British Abortion Law. There is a sentence written in red on the bottom right of the video whih reads as follows [the data in this video are from official UK sources]

The promo wording before the video reads "out new video sets out the deadly and deeply immoral nature of Britain's abortion law. Our Government wants our law to go even further". The video ends with "for more information go to www.ionainstitute.ie....

Link..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr_lw9bRZXQ

You wonder why these guys always point to Britain when they're looking for an example of a country with 'bad' abortion laws, when there are dozens of similar examples out there. It's like they were appealing to atavistic nationalist sentiments or something...

Peregrinus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You wonder why these guys always point to Britain when they're looking for an example of a country with 'bad' abortion laws, when there are dozens of similar examples out there. It's like they were appealing to atavistic nationalist sentiments or something...

Actually, no. The UK legal regulation of abortion is crapulous, hypocritical, anti-choice and anti-woman. From that point of view it suits Iona's purposes quite well.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You wonder why these guys always point to Britain when they're looking for an example of a country with 'bad' abortion laws, when there are dozens of similar examples out there. It's like they were appealing to atavistic nationalist sentiments or something...

You must read minds, I was thinking it might be something of an anti-brits hang-up so googled on the N/I abortion scene as the word was that it is a no-go area for abortion and N/I women must have to travel abroad as well, maybe to Scotland. A few pages back I wrote about Cora Sherlock & an RTE interview when only England [not the UK] was mentioned in relation to Irish women travelling for abortions.

In N/I, since it got devolved Govt status, abortion has been available under the law in a similar manner to POLDPA...... Long piece from Wiki..

EDIT: add-on..... Northern Ireland[edit]
Devolution[edit]
Health policy is part of the devolved powers transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly (NIA) by the Northern Ireland Act of 1998 in the frame of the devolution in the United Kingdom.[11][12] Abortion Law in Northern Ireland falls within the scope of the Criminal Law in Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice and Policing powers were devolved to Northern Ireland in 2010.

Law concerning abortion[edit]
The Abortion Act 1967 does not extend to Northern Ireland.[13] The pieces of legislation governing abortion in Northern Ireland are sections 58 and 59 of he Offences against the Person Act 1861 and sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (which are derived from the corresponding provisions of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929).

An offence under section 58 is punishable with imprisonment for life or for any shorter term.[14]
Performing an abortion in Northern Ireland is an offence except in specific cases.[15] An offence under section 25(1) of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 is, by the proviso to that section, not committed if the act which caused the death of a child was done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother. The word "unlawfully" in section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 imports the meaning expressed by the said proviso and thus section 58 must be read as if the words making it an offence to use the instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage were qualified by a similar proviso.[16] In other words, a person who procures an abortion in good faith for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother is not guilty of an offence.[17] In Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Board v A and Others [1994] NIJB 1, MacDermott LJ said, at p 5, that he was "satisfied that the statutory phrase, 'for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother' does not relate only to some life-threatening situation. Life in this context means that physical or mental health or well-being of the mother and the doctor’s act is lawful where the continuance of the pregnancy would adversely affect the mental or physical health of the mother. The adverse effect must however be a real and serious one and there will always be a question of fact and degree whether the perceived effect of non-termination is sufficiently grave to warrant terminating the unborn child." In Western Health and Social Services Board v CMB and the Official Solicitor (1995) unreported, Pringle J stated "the adverse effect must be permanent or long-term and cannot be short term … in most cases the adverse effect would need to be a probable risk of non-termination but a possible risk might be sufficient if the imminent death of the mother was a risk in question" [18] In Family Planning Association Of Northern Ireland v Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (8 October 2004) - Nicholson LJ stated at paragraph 73 - "it is unlawful to procure a miscarriage where the foetus is abnormal but viable, unless there is a risk that the mother may die or is likely to suffer long-term harm, which is serious, to her physical or mental health."[19] Sheil LJ stated at paragraph 9 - "termination of a pregnancy based solely on abnormality of the foetus is unlawful and cannot lawfully be carried out in this jurisdiction."[20]
Thus, Northern Irish women have two solutions to have an abortion. They can either have a legal abortion via the NHS or in a private clinic in Northern Ireland (provided they meet the criteria of a serious and long term risk to mental or physical health that is probable and not possible),[21] or in all other circumstances travel in England, Scotland or Wales, and pay to terminate their pregnancy in a private clinic (provided they meet the legal criteria for accessing abortion services under the Abortion Act 1967).[22]
On 30 November 2015, Horner J in the High Court in Belfast made a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 to the effect that Northern Ireland's law on abortion, specifically its lack of provision in cases of fatal foetal abnormality or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, could not be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

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

I'm mindful that Wiki is a free service and that a nephew told me that a non-wiki staff/moderator can contribute and correct other contributors posts where cases of "incorrect" information is used in Wiki as the truth. I see in the above Wiki info that the word child, and not unborn or feotus, is used [para 2 highlighted in yellow]. There is reference to the unborn child in the second high-lit section.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no. The UK legal regulation of abortion is crapulous, hypocritical, anti-choice and anti-woman. From that point of view it suits Iona's purposes quite well.

Could you qualify the above assertions please?

aloyisious

The 13 words of the wording approved by the Govt for inclusion in the referendum will be published soon, according to RTE. Simon Harris is on RTE 1PM news now. The wording will be laid before the Dail tomorrow. Mattie McGrath is objecting [not on RTE] to the "rushed" debate, wants more time to consider the item.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm mindful that Wiki is a free service and that a nephew told me that a non-wiki staff/moderator can contribute and correct other contributors posts where cases of "incorrect" information is used in Wiki as the truth. I see in the above Wiki info that the word child, and not unborn or feotus, is used [para 2 highlighted in yellow]. There is reference to the unborn child in the second high-lit section.

The word "child" is written into the legislation, which goes back to 1945 as a NI law update (to the same archaic offences against the person act that was in RoI law prior to our 2013 update).

Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.

http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2013/12/20/reforming-abortion-law-in-northern-ireland/

Whats even more interesting is the way their case law "evolved" so that the word "life" became interpreted as "health" without any change to the actual text. It seems to me that they have stretched the meaning of words beyond breaking point there. The end result is far too ambiguous really.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

The word "child" is written into the legislation, which goes back to 1945 as a NI law update (to the same archaic offences against the person act that was in RoI law prior to our 2013 update).
http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2013/12/20/reforming-abortion-law-in-northern-ireland/

Whats even more interesting is the way their case law "evolved" so that the word "life" became interpreted as "health" without any change to the actual text. It seems to me that they have stretched the meaning of words beyond breaking point there. The end result is far too ambiguous really.

I think I see the point you are arguing but disagree as I see HEALTH as an overall - not just a nebulous - concept. I see health as akin to the aphorism "mens sana in corpore sana", with the addition that a woman's state of unhealth can naturally affect the unborn within the said woman's womb. The woman might be seen by a doctor as unhealthy or unwell without taking into consideration the bigger picture or more a deliberate refusal based solely on personal [religious or other] based belief [I refuse to kill the unborn even in full knowledge that that refusal will kill the woman within who's womb the unborn is].

As for stretching of the meaning of words, in respect of law, or it's "evolving" and ambiguity, We've just seen where a judge who'd made a ruling on rights due to his interpretation of words, and his seeing rights effective presence in [EDIT: Civil] law where it did not exist in word or intent, has his ruling overturned where our law is concerned.

Loafing Oaf

smacl wrote: »

Could you qualify the above assertions please?

I second this request...