Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

oscarBravo

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

The old chestnut of men having no right to opinion on the issue of abortion really makes my blood boil too. I am a human being and abortion affects all human beings - the mother, the father and the unborn child.

Only one of those is pregnant. You don't get to decide that someone else has to be pregnant just because you contributed gametes.

It's astonishing how much of the push-back against the idea that a woman has the right not to be pregnant comes from men.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

Social media and reality are very different things, in the cold hard light of day people don't always do what the type on a keyboard.

That's exactly why I don't trust people, because all too often I've seen how they go with the crowd in public, and in private hold a very different view.

If you don't trust people to make decisions that affect their own lives and those of their familys and friends then I'm very sorry to hear that you have such poor faith in our species.

Stall the horses there Cabaal! I never said anything about any "faith in our species", I said I don't trust people based upon my experience of the way people have a public and private persona and often the position they hold will depend upon the company they're in. I understand why they do it, but they shouldn't expect I should trust them then.

As it happens - I don't. But that doesn't mean I automatically think they're a terrible person. It just means they're human.

The referendum commission exists for just that (its independent after all), in addition the two sides get equal media time.

On top of that people can do their own research.

The "sides" can be disappointing at times, after all they throw around an awful lot of fear mongering such as "Bye Bye Daddy", mothers day will be banned and the fear of tornado's (:pac:) and the likes. But people can also use the referendum commission info and their own research to come to a decision.

If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that the last thing people want to do, is their own research. I can't say I blame them, there's mountains of it available, and it's time consuming, and it's generally a pain in the hole, so unless they're personally affected by the issue, I don't expect people will be too motivated to do their own research.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Only one of those is pregnant. You don't get to decide that someone else has to be pregnant just because you contributed gametes.

If only it were that simple. Under certain circumstances, they absolutely would be able to control whether a woman would remain pregnant or not. It wouldn't be pretty.

It's astonishing how much of the push-back against the idea that a woman has the right not to be pregnant comes from men.

And yet, consistently, in numerous surveys conducted on the issue, more women are anti-choice if you like, and more men are pro-choice.

It's only astonishing when it contradicts your already ill-formed misguided perceptions.

Ragnar Lothbrok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Only one of those is pregnant. You don't get to decide that someone else has to be pregnant just because you contributed gametes.

And only one is going to lose its life - the unborn child - so why should any other person have the right to decide that?

One eyed Jack

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

And only one is going to lose its life - the unborn child - so why should any other person have the right to decide that?

It's quite simple really - because the woman carrying the child has all the responsibility, and if she doesn't want that responsibility, she should have the right of access to an abortion so that she can safely terminate her pregnancy in a manner that recognises the human right to dignity for both the woman and the unborn child.

Cabaal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

And only one is going to lose its life - the unborn child - so why should any other person have the right to decide that?

Thats a slipper slope you're going down, so lets go down it further shall we?

Should we ban pregnant women from drinking coffee, alcohol, smoking, rollerskating while pregnant?. After all, all these activities come with a risk to the "unborn child".

What would you propose we do with such women who continue to put the "unborn child" at risk knowing all to well that their lifestyle choices are risky and could cause birth defeats and/or death. What gives the women the right to put the "unborn child" at risk?

If you don't think we should ban women from doing such things then why the double standards?

eviltwin

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

And only one is going to lose its life - the unborn child - so why should any other person have the right to decide that?

Because it's unborn. It's not a separate entity and the pregnant woman has to bear the entire physical, practical and emotional burden of the pregnancy. It's not like a living child where a mother can take a break or abdicate her role entirely, she cannot do that when she is pregnant. It's hard enough having a child when you want it, being forced to stay pregnant against your will must be horrendous. As I said before abortion is not the goal but it's necessary. It's unfortunate a potential life ends but the woman's wishes have to remain paramount.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats a slipper slope you're going down, so lets go down it further shall we?

Should we ban pregnant women from drinking coffee, alcohol, smoking, rollerskating while pregnant?. After all, all these activities come with a risk to the "unborn child".

What would you propose we do with such women who continue to put the "unborn child" at risk knowing all to well that their lifestyle choices are risky and could cause birth defeats and/or death. What gives the women the right to put the "unborn child" at risk?

If you don't think we should ban women from doing such things then why the double standards?

I'd be wary of encouraging entertaining the slippery slope fallacy, purely because it's likely to give people ideas about banning those other things you mention too!!

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If only it were that simple. Under certain circumstances, they absolutely would be able to control whether a woman would remain pregnant or not. It wouldn't be pretty.

Right, but we're not talking about whether someone is physically capable of forcing someone else to do something against their will; we're talking about whether society should dictate that they have a right to do so.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

And only one is going to lose its life - the unborn child - so why should any other person have the right to decide that?

Because the unborn child isn't a person.

Before you argue: yes, you personally believe that it is. That's fine: don't have an abortion. But when you decide that a microscopic bunch of cells is a person, and that that gives you the right to curtail the rights of the actual person in whom those cells are growing, we have a problem.

aloyisious

Ragnar: Maybe this (from an irish Times report on Dept of Health abortion guidelines) might help you in regard to the current situation GOVERNING abortions here in the South of Ireland. POLDPA was kept in mind by the Dept when working up the guidelines as it had to comply with that law.... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwidtqe7ybTMAhVHOMAKHYHkBO0QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fabortion-guidelines-provide-for-induction-or-caesarean-section-1.1935578&usg=AFQjCNFs7gQ87XbpQbgwM1H-CWWjsc1G9w

Edit:abortion isn't always as described by David Quinn and like-minded persons using the word to scare the bejasus into people with images.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, but we're not talking about whether someone is physically capable of forcing someone else to do something against their will; we're talking about whether society should dictate that they have a right to do so.

Society dictates already that they have a right to do so because our Constitution prevents women from availing of abortion in this country unless their life is at risk.

Because the unborn child isn't a person.

Before you argue: yes, you personally believe that it is. That's fine: don't have an abortion. But when you decide that a microscopic bunch of cells is a person, and that that gives you the right to curtail the rights of the actual person in whom those cells are growing, we have a problem.

That sort of reductionist argument is problematic in itself. I'm a bunch of cells, you're a bunch of cells, we're all bunches of cells. Do you really believe telling anyone who disagrees with you about personhood is going to think "Oh well ok Oscar, I won't have an abortion then and I'll mind my own business". They will in their hole! That argument doesn't go anywhere. They aren't arguing with the rights of the woman in mind, they're arguing with the right to life of the unborn human life in mind.

The problem really is that neither perspective is in any way compatible with the other, so you're as well off talking to a brick wall.

frag420

May I ask a hypothetical to those that are anti-choice.

So from what I can gather from this and other threads is that you believe that the unborn and the mother have an equal right to life.

So we can assume that the same would go once the unborn are born, equal rights to the child and the mother.

So say you if you are female or your partner (if you're male) had conjoined twins and you were told that one can be saved at the cost of life to the other conjoined twin or both will die if there is no intervention.

What would you do? Would you let them both die? Would you sacrifice one for the other? If you went with the second option how would you decide which of the conjoined twins has more of a right to life over the other?

While I know its a hypothetical I would love if those that are anti choice could answer this for me as I am curious to know how you assign equal rights and who gets afforded them.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Society dictates already that they have a right to do so because our Constitution prevents women from availing of abortion in this country unless their life is at risk.

The same Constitution explicitly permits them to go abroad to avail of abortion.

That sort of reductionist argument is problematic in itself. I'm a bunch of cells, you're a bunch of cells, we're all bunches of cells. Do you really believe telling anyone who disagrees with you about personhood is going to think "Oh well ok Oscar, I won't have an abortion then and I'll mind my own business". They will in their hole! That argument doesn't go anywhere. They aren't arguing with the rights of the woman in mind, they're arguing with the right to life of the unborn human life in mind.

The problem really is that neither perspective is in any way compatible with the other, so you're as well off talking to a brick wall.

I'm not arguing with Ragnar because I think I'm going to change his mind - if someone has decided that a zygote is a person, then they're probably not amenable to persuasion - I'm arguing with him because I disagree with his arguments, and I'm presenting an alternative perspective.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

The same Constitution explicitly permits them to go abroad to avail of abortion.

That's not much good to a woman who is dependent upon the man who impregnated her to fund the cost of her traveling abroad. I'm not meaning to be argumentative about this, but I'm trying to demonstrate that depending upon the circumstances, it's really not so easy for a woman to end her pregnancy if the man who impregnated her doesn't want her to end her pregnancy.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not much good to a woman who is dependent upon the man who impregnated her to fund the cost of her traveling abroad. I'm not meaning to be argumentative about this, but I'm trying to demonstrate that depending upon the circumstances, it's really not so easy for a woman to end her pregnancy if the man who impregnated her doesn't want her to end her pregnancy.

...and that's why abortion must be seen as a human rights issue for women, which in turn is why I'll keep arguing against the idiotic idea that an embryo is a person.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and that's why abortion must be seen as a human rights issue for women

To be perfectly honest, I see abortion as a human rights issue that concerns all human life. That's the whole point of human rights - that they aren't exclusive of human life, be it the life of a woman, man, child, or the unborn. The fundamental point of a right is that it recognises the dignity of all human life. Abortion then is absolutely not just an issue for women. It's an issue for every human life.

There are a plethora of issues that are all tied into abortion, and it's never going to be as simplistic as just focusing on legislating for abortion and having none of the necessary support services in place such as aftercare services like counselling and so on.

While posters are pointing out cases like FFA and rape and so on, those circumstances are exceptionally rare, pointless to campaign for legislating for them. There are far more many women find themselves in a situation where they are facing an unwanted pregnancy following the breakdown of their relationship, or they're in domestic violence situations, or they are experiencing ill mental health, or they have children already and couldn't cope with any more.

Having the right to an abortion will mean fcukall to those women if they cannot exercise that right due to their circumstances. That's what I'm driving at, and that's why I'm trying to hammer home the point that without adequate support services, legislating for abortion in this country isn't going to change a whole lot in reality.

That's why I get so frustrated with people that treat human rights issues like a box ticking exercise and they appear to have no regard for just how complex the issues they're campaigning about really are.

which in turn is why I'll keep arguing against the idiotic idea that an embryo is a person.

Well to you it might be an idiotic idea, but even the scientific community can't agree on when personhood begins, and nobody is willing to call it because of the complexity of moral and ethical issues involved. That's why even from a legal perspective, "the unborn" refers to the human life from the point of implantation, to the point where that human life emerges from the womb.

Arguing about a bunch of cells and time limits and so on is pointless, it's been done over and over in this thread already and it just doesn't inform the discussion, it stalls it. It doesn't convince anyone, and it reduces the importance of the discussion to a clamouring for the moral high ground contest that bears no reflection whatsoever on reality for the vast majority of people in this country. The amount of times I've sat down to dinner with a family and someone passes judgement on women who have had an abortion, or someone makes a joke about getting the boat, or whatever other comments that have their female relative sitting at the same table look over at me, and we both just know what each other is thinking - "say nothing!".

It pisses me off like you wouldn't believe tbh.

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it wouldn't. Pro-life people are imposing their views on people. There's no debate over the question of whether a pregnant woman is a person. The question of whether or not an implanted embryo is a person is far from one of simple fact. So no: it's not a similar imposition.

Yes, it is. If pro-choice people had the opportunity they would also be imposing their views on people. Whether there's a debate as to the validity of any part of those views (and there obviously is on both sides) doesn't change the fact that one side getting their way imposes their view on others, in each case it's an opinion which informs public policy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or, to put it another way, people could choose whether or not to be pregnant. Isn't it reasonable to think that allowing someone to make a choice is less of an imposition than denying them a choice?

Or put it another way; people shouldn't be free to choose whether or not to kill someone. Isn't it reasonable to think that killing someone is more of an imposition than denying someone a choice?

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a pretty patriarchal attitude. It's also one the UN disagrees with.

A view that some parts of the UN disagrees with Like some parts of the Irish population disagree with it. And there's nothing patriarchal about stating a fact.

Absolam

rainbow kirby wrote: »

At the end of the day, the simple biological reality is that the one with the uterus is the one that carries it - so at the end of the day it *is* their choice.

Well... it would be if society allowed it to be.

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm sure there are people against abortion, just like there were people against marriage equality. A very vocal group but very much not a group that represented the majority as all the polls showed before hand,

Though we've no reason to think they're the same group either, do we? For instance, I'm against abortion and was for marriage equality. So there's one for starters :-)

Cabaal wrote: »

At the end of the day we need to put the issue to a vote and society decides as a whole, its the fairest and most democratic way of doing it. There is nothing to fear from vote unless you don't trust people?

That sounds very fair and democratic. It does however allow for the possibility of the introduction of a more liberal abortion regime; so anyone who is more interested in preserving the lives of others than being most democratic probably isn't going to be a fan of the notion. I think this has come up before on the thread?

Absolam

frag420 wrote: »

May I ask a hypothetical to those that are anti-choice. So from what I can gather from this and other threads is that you believe that the unborn and the mother have an equal right to life. So we can assume that the same would go once the unborn are born, equal rights to the child and the mother. So say you if you are female or your partner (if you're male) had conjoined twins and you were told that one can be saved at the cost of life to the other conjoined twin or both will die if there is no intervention. What would you do? Would you let them both die? Would you sacrifice one for the other? If you went with the second option how would you decide which of the conjoined twins has more of a right to life over the other? While I know its a hypothetical I would love if those that are anti choice could answer this for me as I am curious to know how you assign equal rights and who gets afforded them.

Well, I'm not anti-choice, I think people should be entitled to make all sorts of choices, just not ones that routinely result in the death of someone else, though I suspect your use of the term belies a certain leaning of opinion? But I'll give it a go all the same. It would seem readily apparent that whilst everyone has an equal right to life, there are occasions where people may die nevertheless. And where the death of one may result in one living where two may have died, less deaths is a more desirable outcome than more. That doesn't negate or diminish the right to life of either person; they both still have an equal right. But it's unlikely they both have an equal chance, and in that case most people (whether they are pro-choice or pro-life) I think would choose to save the person with the greater chance. And if both have an equal chance, unlikely as that may be, I think both a pro-choice and a pro-life individual would have a difficult time deciding which person they will save, if they know they can only save one. The only difference is that in certain circumstances a pro-choice individual doesn't consider one of those people to be a person, and therefore sees no choice at all; they need only save the life of the person they see.

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, it is. If pro-choice people had the opportunity they would also be imposing their views on people.

You're equating "you get to choose whether or not to be pregnant" with "you don't get to choose whether or not to be pregnant", and claiming that they are equivalent. That's, frankly, nonsense.

Or put it another way; people shouldn't be free to choose whether or not to kill someone.

Yet again, you have to indulge in the ridiculous fiction that an embryo is a person in order to draw your equivalence.

It would be a fascinating discussion purely in the abstract, but the simple fact is that denying access to safe, legal and free abortion has only one real consequence, and that is that desperate women will put their own lives at risk trying to procure abortions in unsafe ways, or jeopardise their liberty by procuring them in illegal ways.

And that's what this comes down to, for me. Counting the angels on pinheads isn't just wankish omphaloskepsis, it's actively harmful.

If you want to assume a spherical chicken of uniform density that an embryo is a person, feel free. But restrictions on abortions are actively harming women, and that's something that nobody in a civilised country should be proud of.

A view that some parts of the UN disagrees with Like some parts of the Irish population disagree with it. And there's nothing patriarchal about stating a fact.

Listen to yourself. You just said that "some parts" of the UN agree with an assertion, and that "some parts" of the Irish population disagree with it - and then go on to declare the contrary to be a fact, and ergo dismiss the idea that stating it could possibly be patriarchal.

If someone states that women are inherently less worthy than men, there are "some parts" of the Irish population that will agree with that statement. That doesn't make it a fact, and it most certainly doesn't exempt it from an accusation of being patriarchal.

The idea that a woman has no right not to be pregnant is just a subtly different hue of the belief that she is her husband's property, or that there's no rape in marriage. It's, quite frankly, a disgraceful view for anyone to hold in this day and age, and I have no problem with calling them out for it.

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're equating "you get to choose whether or not to be pregnant" with "you don't get to choose whether or not to be pregnant", and claiming that they are equivalent. That's, frankly, nonsense.

Nope I'm not. You'd like me to, but I'm not. I'm equating one majority opinion informing public policy with another majority opinion informing public policy. Much much more straightforward.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yet again, you have to indulge in the ridiculous fiction that an embryo is a person in order to draw your equivalence

Your notion of a ridiculous fiction is just that; a notion. I understand, considering the unborn to be a person doesn't suit your point of view, but you know you've no substantive basis to refute someone else holding the position. I think that's why you find yourself resorting to snarl words like 'ridiculous fiction' and 'idiotic idea' rather than taking a factual line when you come up against it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It would be a fascinating discussion purely in the abstract, but the simple fact is that denying access to safe, legal and free abortion has only one real consequence, and that is that desperate women will put their own lives at risk trying to procure abortions in unsafe ways, or jeopardise their liberty by procuring them in illegal ways.

Well, it does actually have another real consequence; it prevents a number of people being killed in the jurisdiction that otherwise would have been killed had there been safe, legal, and free abortion. Or do you think the incidence of abortion in Ireland would not rise if it were more readily available?

oscarBravo wrote: »

And that's what this comes down to, for me. Counting the angels on pinheads isn't just wankish omphaloskepsis, it's actively harmful. If you want to assume a spherical chicken of uniform density that an embryo is a person, feel free. But restrictions on abortions are actively harming women, and that's something that nobody in a civilised country should be proud of.

Odd ideas of navel gazing aside, I don't think anyone wants to be proud of harming anyone, whether it's women or children. Most people would prefer to see the least harm done in all cases, it's just we disagree on what constitutes the least harm. And to be fair, if you thought you could show a relationship between a highly simplified theoretical scientific model and the attribution of the term person to an unborn child you would; simply placing the two side by side as if referencing one gives credibility to your position on the other is more than a tad disingenuous. Or desperate.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Listen to yourself. You just said that "some parts" of the UN agree with an assertion, and that "some parts" of the Irish population disagree with it - and then go on to declare the contrary to be a fact, and ergo dismiss the idea that stating it could possibly be patriarchal.

I think you should read what I said again so Some parts of the UN disagree with the idea that abortion is not a human right, just like some parts of the Irish population disagree with it. But abortion is not an expressly stated right in UN human rights treaties; I agree there are those who feel it is an interpreted right, but it is not an expressly stated right in UN human rights treaties, hence the fact that ireland, as a signatory to those treaties, is not obligated to expand the availability of abortion any further than our own Constitution allows, despite the concerns and recommendations of certain UN committees. Ragnar Lothbroks position that no such human right exists is not unreasonable; the right does not exist in Ireland (notwithstanding that a doctor may determine it is a correct medical course to terminate a pregnancy by aborting the life of a foetus in certain circumstances), it's not expressed in UN human rights treaties, and in such jurisdictions as allow abortion, practically none express the facility as an actual right to abortion; it's generally an extension or extrapolation of a right to privacy or wellbeing. Effectively but not explicitly a right to abortion. And I didn't offer an 'ergo' in dismissing your statement that saying no such human right actually exists is (not could possibly be) a pretty patriarchal statement. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as some posters are fond of saying.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If someone states that women are inherently less worthy than men, there are "some parts" of the Irish population that will agree with that statement. That doesn't make it a fact, and it most certainly doesn't exempt it from an accusation of being patriarchal.

I totally agree, it certainly doesn't make it a fact. And any accusation of it being patriarchal would need some substantiation before anyone could be expected to give it credence.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea that a woman has no right not to be pregnant is just a subtly different hue of the belief that she is her husband's property, or that there's no rape in marriage. It's, quite frankly, a disgraceful view for anyone to hold in this day and age, and I have no problem with calling them out for it.

How about you provide some evidence for the idea that a woman has some right not to be pregnant, before throwing epithets and accusations of mysogny at anyone who might have the temerity to point out that no one has established such a right as might cause them to propose the idea that a woman has no apparent right not to be pregnant? Before we even get to the idea that such a right might entail a right to kill someone else in the cause of vindicating that right?
I can see you have no problem calling people out on things quiet frankly, but I do get the impression you're calling them out on things you've made up just to call them out on....

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea that a woman has no right not to be pregnant is just a subtly different hue of the belief that she is her husband's property, or that there's no rape in marriage. It's, quite frankly, a disgraceful view for anyone to hold in this day and age, and I have no problem with calling them out for it.

Ahh, now I understand what you meant when you said that my pointing out that no such human right not to be pregnant actually exists, was 'a very patriarchal attitude'. I didn't address it at the time because I figured it was only your opinion, and I was more concerned with clarifying what you meant by saying that the UN disagrees.

Now that I see what you actually meant when you said mine was a very patriarchal attitude, it's no wonder I didn't understand what you meant, because with the further inferences, it's clear you're trying to imply a far more insidious line of thought.

That's not calling me out on anything I actually said. That's setting up something in your own mind about me, and calling that out instead? I don't mean this as a personal attack, but to try and infer what you did from my stating a fact - you know what you can do with your subtly different hue of belief.

When you're done with that, I'd still appreciate some clarification on your point where you suggest that the UN disagrees with my pointing out that no such human right not to be pregnant actually exists.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It's awful when a dead body has more rights than a pregnant woman

Absolam

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's awful when a dead body has more rights than a pregnant woman

Probably is all right. Or would be? Something like that anyway. Just awful.

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

How about you provide some evidence for the idea that a woman has some right not to be pregnant, before throwing epithets and accusations of mysogny at anyone who might have the temerity to point out that no one has established such a right as might cause them to propose the idea that a woman has no apparent right not to be pregnant?

How about instead we just focus on the fact that you're arguing vehemently against the idea that a woman has a right to choose not to be pregnant.

Let's take that vehement argument and juxtapose it with the ongoing court cases in the US where various parties are taking extreme exception to the very idea of contraception.

For that matter, let's consider it against the backdrop of contraception only very recently becoming widely available in Ireland.

The idea that a woman has no right to decide not to be pregnant is one that has a great deal of currency in some quarters - but trying to divorce that view from the undercurrent of misogyny that informs most if not all of it is not my problem, it's yours.

The right not to be pregnant isn't an enumerated right, sure. But it's widely considered to be an interpreted right. If you're arguing from the perspective that it shouldn't be a right, then you're arguing that whether or not she should be pregnant is a choice that someone else gets to make for a woman.

The only way to try to claim some non-patriarchal legitimacy for such an argument is to frame it as a conflict of rights between two people - which leads again to the fiction that an embryo is a person.

And yes: it is a fiction. If an embryo is a person, why isn't its alleged right to life being vigorously defended by every human rights group on the planet without exception?

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

How about instead we just focus on the fact that you're arguing vehemently against the idea that a woman has a right to choose not to be pregnant.

Nobody is arguing against the idea that a woman can choose not to become pregnant.

Let's take that vehement argument and juxtapose it with the ongoing court cases in the US where various parties are taking extreme exception to the very idea of contraception.

For that matter, let's consider it against the backdrop of contraception only very recently becoming widely available in Ireland.

The idea that a woman has no right to decide not to be pregnant is one that has a great deal of currency in some quarters - but trying to divorce that view from the undercurrent of misogyny that informs most if not all of it is not my problem, it's yours.

The only person who appears to be trying to infer some connection between all of the above, is yourself. Therefore it's a problem of your own making, and you're trying to make out that a problem you made up, is a problem that other people have? I'm sure it makes sense to you, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

The right not to be pregnant isn't an enumerated right, sure.

Well I'm glad you finally cleared that up!

But it's widely considered to be an interpreted right.

I think it's more correct to say that international legal instruments are interpreted by some people, as inferring a right where one doesn't exist. They would be the kind of people who want to enforce their opinion on everyone else as though their interpretation of international legal instruments is the only correct interpretation.

If you're arguing from the perspective that it shouldn't be a right, then you're arguing that whether or not she should be pregnant is a choice that someone else gets to make for a woman.

No they're not.

The only way to try to claim some non-patriarchal legitimacy for such an argument is to frame it as a conflict of rights between two people - which leads again to the fiction that an embryo is a person.

And yes: it is a fiction. If an embryo is a person, why isn't its alleged right to life being vigorously defended by every human rights group on the planet without exception?

It isn't a fiction. The determination of personhood is a social construct (and curiously enough, the Bible would actually help you out there if you wanted to claim that personhood is a right conferred upon birth!). Human rights themselves are a Western social construct, that would just as easily qualify as fiction by your definition.

The reason why Amnesty International do not defend the right to life of the unborn is because they aren't really interested in human rights at all. They are nothing more than a self-interested political lobby group. They haven't been a human rights advocacy group for a number of years now.

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody is arguing against the idea that a woman can choose not to become pregnant.

Not sure if this is accidental or intentional on your part, but this is not what he said...

There is a very big difference between having a right not to become pregnant and what oscarBravo has said, a right to choose not to be pregnant. Two completely different things.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason why Amnesty International do not defend the right to life of the unborn is because they aren't really interested in human rights at all. They are nothing more than a self-interested political lobby group. They haven't been a human rights advocacy group for a number of years now.

Yeah, what a bunch of useless w@nkers.

MrP

One eyed Jack

MrPudding wrote: »

Not sure if this is accidental or intentional on your part, but this is not what he said...

There is a very big difference between having a right not to become pregnant and what oscarBravo has said, a right to choose not to be pregnant. Two completely different things.

There's also a very big difference between the right not to be pregnant, and the right to an abortion.

It was intentional tbh, to point out that what we're talking about here is not the right not to be pregnant, but the right to an abortion. I may not agree with denying women the right to avail of an abortion, but I have an even more fundamental disagreement with people using weasel wording, misdirection, misrepresentation and just outright falsehoods to further their own position.

Yeah, what a bunch of useless w@nkers.

MrP

I couldn't have picked a more apt description myself!

A summary of an Amnesty International UK meeting held in 2013 revealed the intention to support the decriminalisation of prostitution before any consultation with Amnesty members or stakeholders. When a draft copy of the policy was leaked in early 2014, many feminists and prostitution survivors condemned the proposal, and Amnesty were met with considerable resistance. Members were consequently offered three weeks — from April 2 to 21, 2014 — to provide feedback on the document, although most members did not even receive notification that this process was available to them. On July 7, 2015, an updated draft was released to Amnesty International members, which was again criticised by feminist organisations, including The Coalition Against Trafficking of Women (CATW), who published an open letter signed by over 400 advocates and organisations, condemning “Amnesty’s proposal to adopt a policy that calls for the decriminalization of pimps, brothel owners and buyers of sex — the pillars of a $99 billion global sex industry.” Contrary to claims that decriminalisation would make prostituted people safer, critics pointed to research from numerous countries in which deregulation of the sex industry had produced catastrophic results: "the German government, for example, which deregulated the industry of prostitution in 2002, has found that the sex industry was not made safer for women after the enactment of its law. Instead, the explosive growth of legal brothels in Germany has triggered an increase in sex trafficking." These campaigners instead asked Amnesty to support the so-called Nordic model, in which sex buyers and pimps are criminalised, while prostituted people are decriminalised. In early August, a large number of NGOs published an open letter in support of the criminalisation proposal. The organizations supporting Amnesty International's position included the Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe (ICRSE), Sex Workers’ Rights Advocacy Network in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia (SWAN), Human Rights Watch, and the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women.

On 11 August 2015, the International Council Meeting (ICM) adopted a resolution which authorized the International Board to develop and adopt the decriminalisation policy.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's also a very big difference between the right not to be pregnant, and the right to an abortion.

It was intentional tbh, to point out that what we're talking about here is not the right not to be pregnant, but the right to an abortion. I may not agree with denying women the right to avail of an abortion, but I have an even more fundamental disagreement with people using weasel wording, misdirection, misrepresentation and just outright falsehoods to further their own position.

So by making it look as though you were replying to something that had been said when in fact you were making up your own argument to something that hadn't been said at all, were you also intentionally providing us with an example of weasel wording, misdirection and misrepresentation?

Or were we not meant to notice?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I couldn't have picked a more apt description myself!

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International

Nice that you were able to find criticism of Amnesty International to back up your claims, but it looks like more misdirection, TBH.

What has this particular issue got to do with your complete dismissal of the entire organization?

Do you imagine that any organization present in so many countries for so many years will never have done anything that could lead to criticism of its actions? Or indeed never made a mistake in its handling of all the issues it has taken on over the years?

Or are you saying that AI is so rotten that their approach to prostitution is not an example of where they may - or may not - just have got something wrong but is actually evidence that they are in reality lobbying for some Mafia group or something?

MrPudding

volchitsa wrote: »

So by making it look as though you were replying to something that had been said when in fact you were making up your own argument to something that hadn't been said at all, were you also intentionally providing us with an example of weasel wording, misdirection and misrepresentation?

Or were we not meant to notice?

This seems fairly standard for OEJ.

MrP