Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

frostyjacks

The US state of Indiana looks like they're strengthening their pro-life stance. They'll make it illegal to kill babies based on their race, gender, or whether they have Downs syndrome. The pro-abortion people are, of course, fuming about this.

http://m.christianpost.com/news/down-syndrome-babies-abortion-indiana-mike-pence-159111/?m=1

aloyisious

This also cover's the Indiana Bill and includes a slightly different slant about some republicans. It's the 2nd bill on abortion introduced into the state house by Senator Holdman, the last being rejected by the house.

There are claim's that part of the bill passed by the Senate was NOT in the bill when it passed through the lower house vote, only being introduced into the bill when it was in the Senate. The bill has rattled several anti-choice Republicans. CBS reports that the abortion ban was sneakily introduced to the bill when it landed in the Senate, after the bill had already passed in the House. It was then sent for a vote in the House without any negotiation or debate.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_j-Ls9cDLAhXDOQ8KHRTLADgQFghBMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cosmopolitan.com%2Fpolitics%2Fnews%2Fa55037%2Findiana-abortion-bill-ban%2F&usg=AFQjCNGPwuSeVV2nnKR7sg9F-dZb5EIvzQ

Edit.... Given that there are court actions ongoing in other states that brought in laws to change abortion clinics structures about the legality of those changes, it's possible that the same may happen in Indiana, re the parts of the bill covering clinic structural changes. If a lawyer states a case in state or federal court against it, the law may be put into hold even if Governor Pence sign's it into law.

volchitsa

I see the Christian Post article mentions that even some female Republican representatives are against this bill. Women, eh? Ye couldn't be up to them! Lucky we have men like those male Republicans, and of course our very own Frosty Jack here to make us shoulder our responsibilities!

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So given that this is all reported alleged information about someone else who nevertheless doesn't feel strongly enough to come on and speak for themselves (does she even know her views are being put up for discussion by her spouse I wonder?) I think we can presume he's actually projecting onto a third party beliefs and attitudes that he simply doesn't want to own up to himself.

You may presume whatever you wish volchista, and I won't contradict you, as it seems pointless even trying to discuss anything with you at this stage. I've never been secretive about my own position though -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We certainly don't live in any pinko-lefty times or any of the rest of that crap, we live in a society in which the vast majority of people are conservative, right-wing, Roman Catholics like myself. I'm also a ferocious hypocrite btw, so I wouldn't even waste time pointing fingers at the apparent hypocrisy of my position. There's no hypocrisy in arguing what is a civil matter, and nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Bull. You ACTUALLY thought the user was questioning what sex your wife is?

Seriously?

You think anyone here, aside possibly from yourself, is fooled by that?

Because if it actually is true that you thought that was what the user meant............ then you are making a statement about your own intellect that I really think you do not want to be making.

No, I didn't think volchista was questioning what sex my wife was, but rather that she was surreptitiously implying that in trying to explain my wife's views on abortion, that they were actually my own views on abortion, only that I was afraid to admit it.

What statement would I be afraid of making about my own intellect? That I have dyslexia? Big swinging monkeyballs! I've never been secretive about that either -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Give me a minute to think about that one... :pac:

At least it's a distraction from the gammy hip that makes me walk with a limp, so in that sense, yep, people definitely overlook (*sniggers*, terrible pun, should be ashamed of myself ) some flaws more than others.

Both of those though distract from the flaws other people can't really see which is that I can't really read nor write for sh1t, I use my phone to record meetings so I can transcribe my notes later, and reading itself is just a pain in the ass because it takes me fcuking ages, and then I'm still questioning myself did I understand what I read properly or did the person I'm communicating with actually understand what I was saying or were they just saying they did in order to get me to shut the hell up! Dyslexia, great fun at the best of times when misinterpretation can have some humorous results, pain in the ass most of the time though.

Meh, I try to work with what I'm given, something about life, lemons and lemonade, there are people in far worse positions than I am

No shame in it whatsobloodywellever!

(though I do often have to ask my wife to proof-read my posts for legibility and readability, or ask for her assistance in understanding something, so that probably answers your earlier question volchista as to whether my wife is aware of my online activities. She is, and very much so, but though I have encouraged her to join Boards in the past and get into the photography forums and so on, she appears to prefer her blog and facebook for her social media interactions. I hate asking though, purely because I'd rather figure it out on my own).

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No I think it patently obvious that you read the words "the fact that a woman (according to you) is against abortion" and to willfully misread them you applied what was in the brackets to the word before the brackets rather than what followed them.

As I said to volchista, you too are free to presume what you like, and I have no particular interest in contradicting you, not at this point at least.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

By using things we DO have an experience of as a basis for extrapolation. We do it all the time. Maybe you lack the faculty. The rest of us do not.

I have no experience of being homeless for example. But I can empathize with those that are because I have experiences which parallel the experiences they have. Periods where I had no money. Periods where I was cold and hungry. Periods where I felt I had no security or personal autonomy. To name but a few, but the list goes on and on.

That is how empathy works for most of us, even if not for you. ou do not have to go through, have gone through, or be capable of going through something in order to empathize with someone who has. You merely have to be able to parallel experiences you HAVE had, and your feelings and emotions in those moments, in ways where they map on to each other.

Your fantastical version of empathy precludes any empathy at all because even when people have similar experiences.... they are never THE SAME. So under the lights of your nonsensical definitions of empathy, it is almost impossible to empathize with anything at all.

That sounds fantastic. Tell me more about your ability to empathise with homeless people though you have no experience of being homeless. I'd really love to hear it, and I give you my word that I will sit silently while you tell me what it's like to be homeless, because I would have absolutely no idea whatsoever, or at least I don't think I would ever be able to articulate my experiences to your satisfaction before you would be able to empathise with my experience -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Most people I know who work in homeless services charities are grateful for every cent they get, no matter where it comes from, and are grateful to anyone who gets involved, in any capacity, and for you to suggest that these boys "aren't doing enough" shows how much you truly know about what it is to be homeless - you're grateful for any bit of help you receive, no matter who or where it comes from, and I say that as a person who was homeless 20 years ago, and I've done what I can since for other people who were in my situation, and I think these boys ought to be commended and given credit for what they're doing, not picked apart by some finger wagging journalist or some anonymous person on the internet who isn't out there with them!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Having been homeless and an alcoholic with a penchant for nose candy in the past, I'd say definitely trying to give up smokes is the worst!

And guess what? I've never been secretive about that either.

volchitsa wrote: »

I very much doubt that I accused you of lying about your declared position, because I wasn't really aware of what it was until this thread.

...

As I say, I don't think that is true, I'm going to have to ask for examples.

I didn't say you accused me of lying, I said you had on previous occasions questioned my credibility. If the Moderators will show me some leniency on this occasion as cross-forum posting is an infractable offence, but you asked for examples where you had previously questioned my credibility and now claim you weren't aware of my declared position. May I be allowed to refresh your memory -


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93361275&postcount=182

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96966220&postcount=159

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96968494&postcount=161

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96961886&postcount=101

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97816334&postcount=36

volchitsa wrote: »

Well all I can say is that you were apparently aware of the upcoming accusation before I had formulated it myself. I think that's a version of "if the cap fits" or perhaps just your guilty conscience!

As demonstrated above, I was aware of the upcoming accusation based upon the evidence provided by our previous interactions regarding the issue of abortion. It has nothing to do with any version of "if the cap fits", nor a guilty conscience when I have nothing to feel guilty for not doing. Your attempted insinuations, accusations, and claims that you had no previous knowledge of my position on the issue, are for yourself to sort out.

volchitsa wrote: »

Again I won't bother with the rest, mainly for time reasons. Despite the fact that you continue to discuss my posts with other posters, something I find most disagreeable. It's like being talked about behind my back, but deliberately loud enough so that I can hear. It seems unbelievably rude. But maybe that's just me. I wouldn't want to lack empathy with posters who feel the need to refight past posts with third parties, presumably to prove they were right really, once the actual poster has "left the room", so to speak! :rolleyes:

It wasn't talking about you behind your back as it was part of a discussion in the public domain.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

At what point do these rights of the unborn actually kick in, like does my sperm have the same rights as me? and if they don't then why not? they're unborn potential humans. Also who gets to decide when these rights magically appear and by extension rights of the mother disappear?

I'll just leave this here, you may read it in your own time, and substitute the word "foetus" for "the unborn" and "the unborn child" anywhere you see the term, if it helps your understanding -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it would probably be easier for you to educate yourself tbh, as you don't appear to be amenable to the idea that everyone is going to use different definitions and actually all are acceptable depending upon context. For example -

A guide to the implementation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Abortion and the European Convention on Human Rights

Implementation of the Protection of Life During Prenancy Act 2013: Guidance Document for Health Professionals

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Plenty of reading material there to be going ahead with, including in the first two, many references to "the unborn child", and the third document includes the POLDPA which references "the unborn", and defines "the unborn" as -

"“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman"

and that last document includes this little nugget -

"Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth"

(bold emphasis my own)

Now, I'm off to have a chat with my Internet service provider, we appear to have a very different understanding of the word "unlimited". They seem to think it means "unlimited, but with terms and conditions attached"...

aloyisious

Ireland is a signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child UNCRC. I assume it is that which One eyed Jack is referring to with his "Convention on the Rights of the Child". There is one point, amongst many, in the convention and it is this - The UNCRC defines the child as a person under 18 years of age. That seem's to me to indicate that, as the age of a child start's after being birthed from the womb, that a feotus is not a person legally and that the convention does NOT apply to a feotus. I stand ready to be corrected on that point if some-one can find in the convention a definite declaration to the contrary on when a child/person starts his/her existence in life and NOT some-one's understanding of the convention.

It's a point of this debate between Pro-Life and Pro-choice people that there is a dispute about the definition of a child. Pro-Life people regards a feotus as a baby, a child while Pro-Choice people believe that a feotus is NOT a baby, a child. The UNCRC seem's to concur with the Pro-Choice POV about what defines a child. Writing that, I do NOT speak for the UN, only about what I see is written in the UNCRC part I wrote above.

Link.... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi9mZ3ascHLAhUDMZoKHY0_C8YQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fchildrensrights.ie%2Fchildrens-rights-ireland%2Fun-convention-rights-child&usg=AFQjCNHjSmx0R43xs4rNN0wurlwo-SxgXw

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Ireland is a signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child UNCRC. I assume it is that which One eyed Jack is referring to with his "Convention on the Rights of the Child". There is one point, amongst many, in the convention and it is this - The UNCRC defines the child as a person under 18 years of age. That seem's to me to indicate that, as the age of a child start's after being birthed from the womb, that a feotus is not a person legally and that the convention does NOT apply to a feotus. I stand ready to be corrected on that point if some-one can find in the convention a definite declaration to the contrary on when a child/person starts his/her existence in life and NOT some-one's understanding of the convention.

In fairness, you are offering your own understanding of the convention, so I don't see why a rebuttal ought to be held to a different standard.

For instance your assertion that there is this point in the convention "The UNCRC defines the child as a person under 18 years of age." seems to be your understanding, rather than a definite declaration of the Convention. Unless you can point out where it defines a child as a person under eighteen years of age, as I can't see it; as far as I can see it says " child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Now it doesn't define a human being any more than it defines a person, but generally a human being is considered to be a man, woman, or child of the species Homo Sapiens, so you have a bit of an issue there; is it not a human being because it's not a child, is it not a child because it's not a human being? That's not an argument that's going anywhere. Still, at least we know a foetus is definitely below the age of eighteen years no matter how you look at it, so that solves that part.

Luckily, we're very much helped out by the fact that the Declaration of the Rights of the Child in the Preamble specifically calls out the child before birth as being included in it's use of the term child;
"Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth," which is then echoed in paragraph 9 of the Preamble of the Convention itself; "[A]s indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, ‘the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.".

I think it's fair to say the Convention definitely includes children before birth as children. It's fair to say that's specifically the portion of the Convention that One Eyed Jack repeated verbatim (and bolded) in his post, in fact.

aloyisious wrote: »

It's a point of this debate between Pro-Life and Pro-choice people that there is a dispute about the definition of a child. Pro-Life people regards a feotus as a baby, a child while Pro-Choice people believe that a feotus is NOT a baby, a child. The UNCRC seem's to concur with the Pro-Choice POV about what defines a child. Writing that, I do NOT speak for the UN, only about what I see is written in the UNCRC part I wrote above.

Personally I think the debate really centres around personhood, to be honest, rather than the definition of a child, but the UNCHR doesn't concur with the pro choice point of view about what defines a child (if there actually is a pro choice view of what defines a child). In light of the original Declaration, member States pushed for two different definitions of child when drafting the Convention; some members of the Human Rights Commission Working Group would have defined a child as "every human being from the moment of birth", and other members proposed as a definition “every human being from the moment of conception.” As the working group operated on a consensus basis, neither prevailed; the current wording was adopted as it left grounds for States Parties to maintain that the Convention does guarantee protection to the unborn child, whilst allowing other State Parties to assert no prohibition on abortion is expressed in the Convention. This led to some States announcing they leaned one way, such as the UK declaring it would consider that the Convention applies “following a live birth.”, whilst others, such as Germany declared that including the ninth preambular paragraph was “a great success, because it was the first time that the right to life of the unborn child had been recognized in an international convention.”
In short, the UNCHR copped out and left it up to individual States to decide for themselves precisely when being a child begins, they only defined when being a child ends.

Absolam

Huntergonzo wrote: »

At what point do these rights of the unborn actually kick in, like does my sperm have the same rights as me? and if they don't then why not? they're unborn potential humans. Also who gets to decide when these rights magically appear and by extension rights of the mother disappear?

In Ireland the right of the unborn child kicks in at implantation.
No, your sperm does not have the same rights as you, because you are a person and your sperm is not, regardless of whether you think (and I bet you don't) that they're unborn potential humans.
The voting public by referendum get to decide when Constitutional rights 'appear' (if not magically), and could conceivably also decide if, by extension, rights of the mother disappear (though they haven't).

I suspect you know all of this already having been on the Abortion Discussion threads for about a year, so would you say there was a purpose beyond the built in snarks behind what can only have been rhetorical questions?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't say you accused me of lying, I said you had on previous occasions questioned my credibility. If the Moderators will show me some leniency on this occasion as cross-forum posting is an infractable offence, but you asked for examples where you had previously questioned my credibility and now claim you weren't aware of my declared position. May I be allowed to refresh your memory -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93361275&postcount=182

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96966220&postcount=159

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96968494&postcount=161

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96961886&postcount=101

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97816334&postcount=36


As demonstrated above, I was aware of the upcoming accusation based upon the evidence provided by our previous interactions regarding the issue of abortion. It has nothing to do with any version of "if the cap fits", nor a guilty conscience when I have nothing to feel guilty for not doing. Your attempted insinuations, accusations, and claims that you had no previous knowledge of my position on the issue, are for yourself to sort out.

In none of those posts, which mostly come from a single thread a year ago, did I question your credibility, though I now notice that you have several times assumed I was, even though I had been talking about/to another poster (Puca Mama in the first link for ex.)

As for not remembering what your position was, well when you assemble your posts like that I can quite see why I had no clear grasp of what your position was - you're all over the place, from entirely pro-choice to affirming that the location of the embryo within or without the womb is what makes it a person or not!

And yes, I notice that you constantly jump to the conclusion that you are being accused of misrepresenting your position when nothing of the sort has happened, and despite being told that. So we're expected to believe in your good faith but you refuse to believe others.

TBF there's something dodgy with your declared position. I genuinely wasn't aware of that - I think I may not always have realized it was the same poster over different discussions (sorry if that offends your amour-propre!) because it varies so wildly.

It wasn't talking about you behind your back as it was part of a discussion in the public domain.

Hence the quotation marks. You were doing the Internet equivalent all the same.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I didn't think volchista was questioning what sex my wife was

And yet the first and last words of the paragraph you wrote to that person acts like you did. As I said I suspect it to be a wilful and contrived mis-reading of the persons post in order to dodge it by distortion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What statement would I be afraid of making about my own intellect? That I have dyslexia?

No nothing to do with dyslexia. Acting like someone was questioning the sex of your wife is either willfully dishonest misrepresentation, or indicative of a extreme mental deficiency of intelligence. I do not believe the latter, though I remain open minded. Nor do I see Dyslexia as a lack of intelligence and never have. Quite the opposite in some people in fact. I was only just reading an autobiographical book by Henry Winkler for example who suffered in the past quite heavily with it, at a time when it was less understood and less diagnosed than it is today, and his intelligence, intellect, passion for the world and knowledge, shine through on every page.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That sounds fantastic. Tell me more about your ability to empathise with homeless people though you have no experience of being homeless.

This is a thread about abortion not homeless people. If you want to discuss them you can derail the thread on your own, not with me. I merely used them as an example, and will not let you engage in your usual MO of dodging points by running off down the rabbit hole of someones examples and analogies at the expense of the point they were using the example/analogy to highlight.

The point I am making is that empathy is not predicated on sharing exact experiences with people. Empathy is often predicated on sharing SIMILAR experiences or experiences which map onto the same resulting feelings, emotions or thoughts. IF I know what it is like to feel a lack of personal autonomy or personal security and safety, then those feelings and experiences can be mapped on to empathy with those.... such as the homeless.... who share those feelings and fears. For example.

If I know what it is like to have my emotional well being and security be held ransom at the behest and whims of a bully.... then I can use those feelings as a basis for empathy with a woman suffering from physical abuse from a spouse. To give another example. But innumerable such examples abound and they are not rabbit hole exits for you to dodge and retreat down to dodge the core point.

You can mock or deride that if you like, but you are doing so based on nothing but you lacking the faculties others have..... and having no shame in waving that lack around like a flag over your head for all to see.

Hardly a safe, or honest, basis for mockery let alone rebuttal. And certainly not a basis for declaring anyone who has that facility, and the ability to use it, as being an "idiot" when the idiocy lies solely in your mirror on this one.

We can share empathy with pregnant mothers for any numbers of reasons, and mothers faced with the decision of abortion. And we can do so without being pregnant ourselves, or even being women ourselves. Because human empathy has never required a 1:1 mapping of experience or situation in most people. If it is so in your then that too could be a diagnosable condition you could have looked into.

aloyisious

Re my offer to stand ready to be corrected, ta for pointing out that it was my assertion on what the convention said about the child.. I opened the link I provided and went to the 2nd Paragraph to check what was written there. I copied it and the 1st para above it. Both are posted below......

Ireland committed to promote children’s rights when it signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1992. The Children’s Rights Alliance uses the Convention as a framework to change Ireland’s laws, policies and services so that all children are protected, nurtured and empowered. This brings children’s rights to the top of the agenda of our Government, legislators and key decision-makers.

What Does the Convention on the Rights of the Child Say?
The UNCRC defines the child as a person under 18 years of age. It acknowledges the primary role of parents and the family in the care and protection of children, as well as the obligation of the State to help them carry out these duties.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

If you think the Childrens Rights Alliance article in the link provided I was quoting from has misread, misunderstood or misquoted what the UNCRC stated, I can only suggest you contact them and point out what you see. Ref rebuttal and different standard; ?????? As I did not make any assertion about rebuttal and different standard, I decline to debate a non sequitur. TTFN......

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Re my offer to stand ready to be corrected, ta for pointing out that it was my assertion on what the convention said about the child.. I opened the link I provided and went to the 2nd Paragraph to check what was written there. I copied it and the 1st para above it. Both are posted below......

If you think the Childrens Rights Alliance article in the link provided I was quoting from has misread, misunderstood or misquoted what the UNCRC stated, I can only suggest you contact them and point out what you see.

Since the Childrens Rights Alliance didn't offer any assertion here, I don't really see any reason to contact them; you specified that there was a point in the Convention, and based all of your conclusions on it. The fact that you didn't check your source doesn't distance you from it, or the erroneous conclusions you drew from it. But you're welcome for the correction.

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref rebuttal and different standard; ?????? As I did not make any assertion about rebuttal and different standard, I decline to debate a non sequitur. TTFN......

Don't worry, I'm not asking you to debate it (as if it were salient compared to everything else!). I was simply pointing out that if you offer your own understanding of something for discussion, rather than demanding others find a narrowly defined authoritative definite declaration to the contrary of your understanding, you ought to expect they will offer their own understanding of it in return. Fair's fair after all...

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness, you are offering your own understanding of the convention, so I don't see why a rebuttal ought to be held to a different standard.

For instance your assertion that there is this point in the convention "The UNCRC defines the child as a person under 18 years of age." seems to be your understanding, rather than a definite declaration of the Convention. Unless you can point out where it defines a child as a person under eighteen years of age, as I can't see it; as far as I can see it says " child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Now it doesn't define a human being any more than it defines a person, but generally a human being is considered to be a man, woman, or child of the species Homo Sapiens, so you have a bit of an issue there; is it not a human being because it's not a child, is it not a child because it's not a human being? That's not an argument that's going anywhere. Still, at least we know a foetus is definitely below the age of eighteen years no matter how you look at it, so that solves that part.

Luckily, we're very much helped out by the fact that the Declaration of the Rights of the Child in the Preamble specifically calls out the child before birth as being included in it's use of the term child;
"Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth," which is then echoed in paragraph 9 of the Preamble of the Convention itself; "[A]s indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, ‘the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.".

I think it's fair to say the Convention definitely includes children before birth as children. It's fair to say that's specifically the portion of the Convention that One Eyed Jack repeated verbatim (and bolded) in his post, in fact.

Personally I think the debate really centres around personhood, to be honest, rather than the definition of a child, but the UNCHR doesn't concur with the pro choice point of view about what defines a child (if there actually is a pro choice view of what defines a child). In light of the original Declaration, member States pushed for two different definitions of child when drafting the Convention; some members of the Human Rights Commission Working Group would have defined a child as "every human being from the moment of birth", and other members proposed as a definition “every human being from the moment of conception.” As the working group operated on a consensus basis, neither prevailed; the current wording was adopted as it left grounds for States Parties to maintain that the Convention does guarantee protection to the unborn child, whilst allowing other State Parties to assert no prohibition on abortion is expressed in the Convention. This led to some States announcing they leaned one way, such as the UK declaring it would consider that the Convention applies “following a live birth.”, whilst others, such as Germany declared that including the ninth preambular paragraph was “a great success, because it was the first time that the right to life of the unborn child had been recognized in an international convention.”
In short, the UNCHR copped out and left it up to individual States to decide for themselves precisely when being a child begins, they only defined when being a child ends.

But surely you would accept that in practice the UN as an institution does not accept "the right to life of the unborn" as the UNHCR has been pushing various countries to liberalise their abortion laws for several years. And is it not up to the UN itself to decide how its founding documents should be interpreted?

oldrnwisr

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But surely you would accept that in practice the UN as an institution does not accept "the right to life of the unborn" as the UNHCR has been pushing various countries to liberalise their abortion laws for several years. And is it not up to the UN itself to decide how its founding documents should be interpreted?

OK, so here's the thing about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The declaration in question comes from the Preamble of the Convention which states that the child needs "special protection" and that this protection should be given "before as well as after birth."

What the convention doesn't do, however, is any of the following:

1. Take a position on abortion
2. Take a position on when a fetus becomes a child under the meaning of the convention
3. Take a position on when the "special protection" mentioned in the preamble should take effect.
4. Require that any state use the definition in the preamble when interpreting any of the actual articles of the Convention.

The people who drafted the Convention made a special effort to ensure that as many states as possible would sign and ratify the treaty. Therefore, the language of the treaty was made purposefully ambiguous to allow states to adopt the treaty in line with their own legal systems. In fact in the UN report on the Draft Convention (E/CN.4/1989/48) the Working Group states:


"In adopting this preambular paragraph, the Working Group does not intend to prejudice the interpretation of Article 1 or any other provision of the Convention by States Parties."


Furthermore, during negotiations the US delegation made it clear that:

"neither proponents or opponents of abortion can find legal support for their respective positions in the draft Convention"




Sources:


Report of the Working Group on a draft convention of the rights of the Child [E\CN.4\1989\48]


The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues




I hate to state the glaringly obvious here but it should be clear to anyone that the Convention doesn't have either a pro-life or pro-choice stance. I thought Absolam already explained this fairly clearly in post #1297. The Convention was signed by EVERY member of the UN. It was ratified by countries with both pro-life stances (e.g. Ireland) and abortion on demand (e.g. UK). It should be clear from the wording of the articles that the Convention takes a neutral position on abortion. If the preamble is a pro-life position then Article 6 would require abortion to be outlawed by members but it doesn't.


The UNCRC is a very important document and does help to protect countless children from harm. But it is not relevant to an abortion debate. By either side.

One eyed Jack

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, so
I hate to state the glaringly obvious here but it should be clear to anyone that the Convention doesn't have either a pro-life or pro-choice stance. I thought Absolam already explained this fairly clearly in post #1297. The Convention was signed by EVERY member of the UN. It was ratified by countries with both pro-life stances (e.g. Ireland) and abortion on demand (e.g. UK). It should be clear from the wording of the articles that the Convention takes a neutral position on abortion. If the preamble is a pro-life position then Article 6 would require abortion to be outlawed by members but it doesn't.


The UNCRC is a very important document and does help to protect countless children from harm. But it is not relevant to an abortion debate. By either side.

Lest it be misunderstood, I included the UNCRC with those other documents by way of showing that as I said in the post - all terms are acceptable, depending upon context. It wasn't included by way of an argument either way on abortion, but specifically for the fact that it makes reference to providing legal protection for the child before birth. It doesn't make reference to providing legal protection for the foetus before birth.

The other documents were also provided with the intent of showing that they don't use the term "foetus" either, but the question was when does "the unborn" begin, and the documents I provided by way of allowing the poster to inform themselves, for themselves, rather than be influenced by propaganda from either side. That's why I suggested they substitute "the unborn" for "the foetus" if it helps their understanding.

aloyisious

Originally Posted by oldrnwisr View Post
OK, so
I hate to state the glaringly obvious here but it should be clear to anyone that the Convention doesn't have either a pro-life or pro-choice stance. I thought Absolam already explained this fairly clearly in post #1297. The Convention was signed by EVERY member of the UN. It was ratified by countries with both pro-life stances (e.g. Ireland) and abortion on demand (e.g. UK). It should be clear from the wording of the articles that the Convention takes a neutral position on abortion. If the preamble is a pro-life position then Article 6 would require abortion to be outlawed by members but it doesn't.


The UNCRC is a very important document and does help to protect countless children from harm. But it is not relevant to an abortion debate. By either side.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Lest it be misunderstood, I included the UNCRC with those other documents by way of showing that as I said in the post - all terms are acceptable, depending upon context. It wasn't included by way of an argument either way on abortion, but specifically for the fact that it makes reference to providing legal protection for the child before birth. It doesn't make reference to providing legal protection for the foetus before birth.

The other documents were also provided with the intent of showing that they don't use the term "foetus" either, but the question was when does "the unborn" begin, and the documents I provided by way of allowing the poster to inform themselves, for themselves, rather than be influenced by propaganda from either side. That's why I suggested they substitute "the unborn" for "the foetus" if it helps their understanding.

Thank's, both of you.... The UNCRC document is a good read and info.

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But surely you would accept that in practice the UN as an institution does not accept "the right to life of the unborn" as the UNHCR has been pushing various countries to liberalise their abortion laws for several years.

No I wouldn't; or at least I wouldn't accept that in practice the UN as an institution accepts "the right to choice". The UN Human Rights Committee (which is not the UN as an institution) is responsible for monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and has regularly ruled that countries must bring their abortion legislation into line with their Convenant obligations (or, indeed, that countries must comply with their own legislation in the same regard), which is a subtle but important difference.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And is it not up to the UN itself to decide how its founding documents should be interpreted?

That seems to assume the UN is seeking to decide differently from what has been put forward, an assumption for which there is no evidence.
That might at least in part be due to the fact that the Convention on the Rights of the Child isn't a founding document (it was adopted 44 years after the founding of the UN), it's an agreement between States. States who are very likely to take exception to a body unilaterally changing after the fact, an agreement they have entered into.
The UN, you might be interested to know, established the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which actually does establish the general rule of interpretation to be followed in ascertaining the meaning of a binding international instrument for signatory nations, so even the UN doesn't think that interpretation is up to itself. The US have declined to ratify it, oddly enough.

robdonn

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

Think we might all be a bit guilty of this in this thread. :P

robdonn

Why the Irish Government Continues to Ignore the UNs Criticism of Irish Abortion Laws

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c-2849"]Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
Think we might all be a bit guilty of this in this thread. :P

Ah now, we haven't had that many posters as utterly divorced from reality as the Onion's fictional patriot... though luckily when someone does post imaginary bits from the Constitution (I was going to say whether prolife or prochoice, but I'm having trouble finding a prolife example on the thread) there's never a shortage of posters to correct them

robdonn wrote: »

Why the Irish Government Continues to Ignore the UNs Criticism of Irish Abortion Laws

Talk about dubious! So the 'why' according to the author is that
1) " It is clear that the reluctance of today’s government to make changes to abortion laws lies largely in the desire to hold on the Ireland’s sense of Identity."
2) "the relentless politicised attack on sex"("Or more specifically, an attack on female sexuality").
3) The fact that in the writers experience a common fear of Irish people is “well, I do want women to have control over their own bodies, but I’d be afraid that a culture would develop where young Irish people would go around carelessly having sex without worrying about contraception, because they know that they can just get a quickie abortion if they need to”.

It's a pretty dreadful piece of writing, not least when it goes on to reveal that "The only conclusion that can be drawn about the Irish government’s Pro-Life stance is that they are seeking state control over women’s bodies and lives in ways which are medically unnecessary, patronizing and invasive. "... the language of which alone is enough to measure the level of objectivity the author brought to her subject matter. Leaving aside the turgid righteousness of the piece (because, really, who wants to deal with that), exemplified by statements like "If they cared about life then certainly they would care about female death? Certainly they would not use violence?" you're kind of left with nothing... there's no insight, and no attempt whatsoever to match up anything the UN or any part of it has ever said about Ireland and abortion with Ireland's responses, or actual rationales. In fact, no attempt to tell the reader Why the Irish Government Continues to Ignore the UNs Criticism of Irish Abortion Laws... if indeed the Irish Government does so.

I quite like to read a well researched, well written, well constructed and thoughtful pro choice argument. This isn't one; and there are no new ideas here, only hackneyed cliches.

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/eight-amendment-abortion-rights-2685815-Mar2016/

The horrific court case involving a young pregnant brain-dead woman might not be a one-off
The last government legislated for an individual’s autonomy in medical cases – except if you’re a pregnant woman, writes barrister Kate Butler.

As former minister for health James O’Reilly noted, the AHD “has been recognised as an expression of an individual’s autonomy”.

That is, except if you’re a pregnant woman.

A woman can create an AHD that states her wishes to refuse treatment in certain situations, for example, if declared brain dead. However, under s.85(6)(b) of the new law, where a woman makes an AHD specifically setting out that she wishes to refuse treatment, even if she is pregnant, medical professionals are required to ignore those wishes.

So, let’s say you are a woman of child bearing age, perhaps with a serious illness, and you read about that case over Christmas 2014 and thought, ‘I don’t want my family and children to go through that horror show, I’m going to draw up an advance healthcare directive’.

And let’s say that in the AHD you specifically state that you wish to refuse treatment, even where you are pregnant and where the foetus is 20 weeks or less. If that scenario then arises, despite your clear instructions otherwise, life support will not be turned off: s.85(6)(b) kicks in and the medics must automatically refer the case to court.

Instead of providing that doctors may exercise their discretion in cases where the foetus has minimal chance of survival, the government – shackled by the Eighth Amendment – has required an automatic referral to court. Bizarrely, this is seen by policy makers as a vindication of the woman’s rights, because her will and preference will be taken into account by the court.

To give a foetus optimal chances of survival, it should be in utero for 32 weeks. In P.P. v HSE, this woman’s family were looking at a scenario of waiting potentially 17 weeks until they could lay their deceased loved one to rest.

The case in question was this http://www.thejournal.ie/life-support-clinically-dead-woman-judgement-1852228-Dec2014/

So not only can we ignore women's wishes when they are living, we as a country can completely ignore them if the women is dead as well.

Utterly sickening to put any family through such a thing if the person has specifically stated they do not wish to be kept on life support.

frag420

Who is brave enough to put that in the christian forum Abortion thread......

robdonn

frag420 wrote: »

Who is brave enough to put that in the christian forum Abortion thread......

Done.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

The case in question was this http://www.thejournal.ie/life-support-clinically-dead-woman-judgement-1852228-Dec2014/
So not only can we ignore women's wishes when they are living, we as a country can completely ignore them if the women is dead as well.
Utterly sickening to put any family through such a thing if the person has specifically stated they do not wish to be kept on life support.

Didn't we discuss this ages and ages ago?
I for one would be perfectly happy to ignore the wishes of a dead person if it could save the life of a living one. The idea that someone would put respect for a corpse ahead of saving the life of a child is utterly sickening, to be honest.
To cut to the chase though, the High Court ruled that as there was actually no chance that the doctors could do anything that would save the life of the child, they could turn off the life support.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

I for one would be perfectly happy to ignore the wishes of a dead person if it could save the life of a living one. The idea that someone would put respect for a corpse ahead of saving the life of a child is utterly sickening, to be honest.

No, the idea that you would make this woman the subject of a speculative scientific experiment is what is sickening. We don't conduct experiments like this on humans. This is not Tuskegee. There is no prospect for a 14 week foetus to be born alive. The earliest recorded successful preterm birth is 21 weeks, 5 days and the medical consensus is against providing intensive care at before 23 weeks. However, the doctors in this case wanted to experiment on a brain-dead woman, turning her into a biological incubator against the expressed wishes of her next of kin and while her family were trying to cope with the loss, including two young children.
This case highlights the very worst in medical ethics and the idea that a risky experiment with no scientific merit would be conducted without informed consent is perverse in the extreme. It's the very reason we have ethical guidelines in the first place.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I for one would be perfectly happy to ignore the wishes of a dead person if it could save the life of a living one.

Ignoring the wishes of a dead person and the dead persons NOK & family....ain't you just classy.

Sure why allow abortions for suicidal women when we can just leave them kill themselves and try keep them alive like biological incubators against everyone's wishes.

You've cracked it Absolam, if only you cared about actually human beings as much as you claim to care about a 14 week fetus I'm sure the world would be a better place.
:rolleyes:

volchitsa

Cabaal wrote: »

Ignoring the wishes of a dead person and the dead persons NOK & family....ain't you just classy.

Sure why allow abortions for suicidal women when we can just leave them kill themselves and try keep them alive like biological incubators against everyone's wishes.

You've cracked it Absolam!
:rolleyes:

So is Absolam now advocating for the systematic removal of all usable organs without the consent of the person or the Next of Kin? Think how many lives could be saved.

Or is it only pregnant women whose consent is not required in order for their bodies to be exploited by society for the supposed good of others?

Somehow I think I can guess the answer to that. :rolleyes:

JupiterKid

24 years on from the X case it seems that Ireland has learned absolutely nothing.

Cabaal

volchitsa wrote: »

So is Absolam now advocating for the systematic removal of all usable organs without the consent of the person or the Next of Kin? Think how many lives could be saved.

Nah, he'd never want that, sure that would be barbaric and it would ignore people's religious beliefs if you cut them open and took organs without consent and against their religion. (it could also affect men!!)

But using a women's body as a biological incubator when she's dead against wishes of husband/family/partner/wife, thats perfectly fine!
:rolleyes:

The Randy Riverbeast

Absolam wrote: »

Didn't we discuss this ages and ages ago?
I for one would be perfectly happy to ignore the wishes of a dead person if it could save the life of a living one. The idea that someone would put respect for a corpse ahead of saving the life of a child is utterly sickening, to be honest.
To cut to the chase though, the High Court ruled that as there was actually no chance that the doctors could do anything that would save the life of the child, they could turn off the life support.

And yet a person has to sign up to donate their organs.

What if the doctors are wrong? When it comes to FFA the doctors are incompetent according to some people so how can they say there is no chance? If trained medical professionals can't be trusted how can we trust a judge?

frag420

Absolam wrote: »

Didn't we discuss this ages and ages ago?
I for one would be perfectly happy to ignore the wishes of a dead person if it could save the life of a living one. The idea that someone would put respect for a corpse ahead of saving the life of a child is utterly sickening, to be honest.
To cut to the chase though, the High Court ruled that as there was actually no chance that the doctors could do anything that would save the life of the child, they could turn off the life support.

Curious to know if you would you ignore the wishes of someone who said they do not want their organs transplanted if it meant saving another life?

Say one of your parents expressly said that they did not want their organs removed if they die yet there is a chance their heart or liver could save a strangers life, would you allow them to be cut open on the chance it could save a strangers life? Would you go against your parents direct wishes in this instance?