Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

One eyed Jack

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?

Yes?

Or were we not meant to notice?

Of course you were meant to notice, that was the whole point.

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?

It provides just one example of many I could have linked to, to show that AI are no longer an organisation concerned with human rights, they are a political lobby group no different to any other political lobby group.

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?

Heavens no, I only have to look at the record of the RCC to know that an organisation present in so many countries for so many years has done plenty that have led to criticism of it's actions. Maybe that was the point you were making? I don't hold the RCC to any different standard than AI. The difference being that I donated regularly to AI before I realised they were no different to the RCC.

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?

AI is just so rotten beyond redemption at this point that I have no further association with them as I have lost my faith in their ability to remain independent and campaign for human rights for all human life.

Loafing Oaf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

AI are no longer an organisation concerned with human rights,.

So the stuff described in Mr Pudding's link does not meet your definition of human rights activism? Could you give us some idea of what would?

One eyed Jack

MrPudding wrote: »

This seems fairly standard for OEJ.

MrP

At the risk of enforcing my views on anyone else, but shouldn't the goal of everyone be to demonstrate to a person their own hypocrisy?

'Beam in your own eye' and all that jazz...

One eyed Jack

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So the stuff described in Mr Pudding's link does not meet your definition of human rights activism? Could you give us some idea of what would?

Remaining independent of politics would be a good start.

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Remaining independent of politics would be a good start.

Ho w the hell can they do what they do whilst remaining independent of politics?

MrP

One eyed Jack

MrPudding wrote: »

Ho w the hell can they do what they do whilst remaining independent of politics?

MrP

It's because they do what they do now, that I no longer consider them a human rights organisation. Because they are involved in politics, they are a political lobby group, and a very left-leaning, liberal one at that.

Loafing Oaf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's because they do what they do now, that I no longer consider them a human rights organisation. Because they are involved in politics, they are a political lobby group, and a very left-leaning, liberal one at that.

Would you consider campaigning to end the death penalty, for instance, political lobbying? Cos Amnesty has being doing that since the 1970s...

One eyed Jack

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Would you consider campaigning to end the death penalty, for instance, political lobbying? Cos Amnesty has being doing that since the 1970s...

No, I wouldn't, because the death penalty directly violates Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

Source: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I wouldn't, because the death penalty directly violates Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

Source: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

But the fight to end the death penalty is a political fight... Most fights for human rights are political fights as, generally, it ultimately required political acts to give force to human rights.

The universal declaration of human rights is a great document, but in an of itself, it does nothing. How do you think it is enforced? Yes, it has been adopted by the UN, but what does that actually do? The EU has a charter of fundamental rights, basically the universal declaration of human rights, but again, what does that actually do? Finally, you have a Human Rights Act, a piece of legislation, a political instrument. Now that actually give tangible rights, rights that can be enforced.

We would not have those rights without politics, without a political fight and political lobbying. Amnesty has the fight the fight it is in, not the one it or you want it to be in, and it has to fight that fight however it needs to be fought. I am sure they are very upset at your opinion of them, but I suspect that then they balance your unhappiness with what they have achieved, I am sure they have no trouble sleeping.

MrP

One eyed Jack

MrPudding wrote: »

But the fight to end the death penalty is a political fight... Most fights for human rights are political fights as, generally, it ultimately required political acts to give force to human rights.

The universal declaration of human rights is a great document, but in an of itself, it does nothing. How do you think it is enforced? Yes, it has been adopted by the UN, but what does that actually do? The EU has a charter of fundamental rights, basically the universal declaration of human rights, but again, what does that actually do? Finally, you have a Human Rights Act, a piece of legislation, a political instrument. Now that actually give tangible rights, rights that can be enforced.

We would not have those rights without politics, without a political fight and political lobbying. Amnesty has the fight the fight it is in, not the one it or you want it to be in, and it has to fight that fight however it needs to be fought. I am sure they are very upset at your opinion of them, but I suspect that then they balance your unhappiness with what they have achieved, I am sure they have no trouble sleeping.

MrP

That's not quite what I mean by their involvement in politics. Campaigning for changes in the law in countries where human rights are not recognised is one thing, getting involved in the political sphere and declaring what should be human rights for one group, at the expense of riding roughshod over the human rights of another group, isn't my idea of protecting the human rights of all human life.

I have no doubt they sleep soundly, and I'm under no illusion that they actually give a damn for what I think. They, rather like the RCC, are operating under the misguided belief that they are now too big to fail, and they've forgotten where they came from. While I can see some hope for the RCC to redeem itself, the likes of Amnesty have their heads rammed so far up their collective asses that they fail to see how they have lost all credibility as a human rights organisation.

As you astutely point out though - I'm sure they don't care all that much for the opinions of those people who disagree with their new political mandate they've taken upon themselves.

volchitsa

And would it be a complete coincidence if your issues with Amnesty began just around the time you found they were promoting campaigns you didn't agree with? :rolleyes:

Loafing Oaf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

getting involved in the political sphere and declaring what should be human rights for one group, at the expense of riding roughshod over the human rights of another group, isn't my idea of protecting the human rights of all human life.

So basically what this boils down is you don't agree with their position on abortion, therefore all of their human rights activism, even campaigns you supported before, is discredited...

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

And would it be a complete coincidence if your issues with Amnesty began just around the time you found they were promoting campaigns you didn't agree with? :rolleyes:

Given that you have no idea how long I've had issues with Amnesty International, I have no idea how you're able to make any claim about there being any coincidence of any kind. As it happens anyway, you'd be wrong. I had issues with the direction they were taking long before they completely disappeared up their own asses. I'd supported the organisation since 1995, and it was only in 2010 that I felt I could no longer support them as the rot by then had well set in among the organisation.

When the executives were resigning with over €500k payouts, my donations and the campaigns I had voluntarily given my time to, the corruption of their original ideals, and the direction the organisation was going, were among the contributing factors in my decision to withdraw my support for an organisation I felt I could no longer support.

One eyed Jack

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So basically what this boils down is you don't agree with their position on abortion, therefore all of their human rights activism, even campaigns you supported before, is discredited...

No, I disagreed with many things in the organisation before they changed their stance from being neutral on abortion, to disregarding the human rights of the unborn in favour of a politically favourable stance on the issue. Their current stance on decriminalising prostitution and the way they went about it is just another demonstration of how the executives at the top try to enforce their own personal agendas as 'human rights' to curry political favour among the masses, disregarding the opinions of their members, and riding roughshod over other people's actual human rights.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I disagreed with many things in the organisation before they changed their stance from being neutral on abortion, to disregarding the human rights of the unborn in favour of a politically favourable stance on the issue. Their current stance on decriminalising prostitution and the way they went about it is just another demonstration of how the executives at the top try to enforce their own personal agendas as 'human rights' to curry political favour among the masses, disregarding the opinions of their members, and riding roughshod over other people's actual human rights.

For someone who claims to be pro choice you've a real problem with NGOs campaigning to legalise it. There are lots of human rights reasons to legislate for abortion namely the massive death rates caused by illegal abortion, the lack of reproductive choices for many women to prevent pregnancy, lack of maternity care in developing countries, all of these are reasons Amnesty want to see abortion legally available. The only people going to change the law are politicians so of course it's political.

oscarBravo

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.

Imma stop you right there.

The sole and only purpose for procuring an abortion is to end a pregnancy.

I'll follow you down this rabbit hole, but only briefly, in response to your accusation of hypocrisy.

You're correct, but only in a quibbling pedantic sense, when you say that the right not to be pregnant isn't the same thing as the right to an abortion. The reason being, the right not to be pregnant logically encompasses the right not to get pregnant if you don't want to, and the right to stop being pregnant if you discover that you are and don't want to be.

Now, the right not to become pregnant is one that was fought for long and hard, and largely in the face of similar opposition to what we're seeing now. We tend to take that right for granted: very few people would be such insufferable arseholes as to suggest to a woman that she doesn't have a right not to become pregnant against her will.

So, having lost that battle, the forces of patriarchy have moved on and are now declaring that the remainder of the right not to be pregnant is unavailable to them.

So, back to the point at hand. You were busy claiming that unenumerated rights don't exist. At least, I think that's what you were claiming - somehow it turned into a conversation about if Amnesty are for it then you're agin it, or something.

On that point: do you believe that a woman has the right not to become pregnant if she doesn't want to? If not, why not? If so, where is that right enumerated?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

For someone who claims to be pro choice you've a real problem with NGOs campaigning to legalise it. There are lots of human rights reasons to legislate for abortion namely the massive death rates caused by illegal abortion, the lack of reproductive choices for many women to prevent pregnancy, lack of maternity care in developing countries, all of these are reasons Amnesty want to see abortion legally available. The only people going to change the law are politicians so of course it's political.

No, I have a problem with NGO's, and anyone really, who refuses to recognise that the unborn is a human life, and as such the principle of human dignity, upon which all human rights are based, applies.

Otherwise, human rights are meaningless, of no value, if they can be discarded so easily depending upon a popular vote. Amnesty International are just engaged in a popularity contest. If they were actually interested in human rights, one would expect that they would be campaigning for all the things you mention above that actually are human rights. Otherwise, what's the point in legislating for abortion when the people who need to avail of abortion services can't access them, and when they do, the standard of service provided is somewhere between almost non-existent and abysmal.

If Amnesty were doing their job properly, they would be more interested in ensuring that abortions were safe, legal, and rare. Instead they have decided a political posturing popularity contest is the way to go. That kind of campaign only serves one purpose - to draw attention to, and to promote their own public profile.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I have a problem with NGO's, and anyone really, who refuses to recognise that the unborn is a human life, and as such the principle of human dignity, upon which all human rights are based, applies.

Otherwise, human rights are meaningless, of no value, if they can be discarded so easily depending upon a popular vote. Amnesty International are just engaged in a popularity contest. If they were actually interested in human rights, one would expect that they would be campaigning for all the things you mention above that actually are human rights. Otherwise, what's the point in legislating for abortion when the people who need to avail of abortion services can't access them, and when they do, the standard of service provided is somewhere between almost non-existent and abysmal.

If Amnesty were doing their job properly, they would be more interested in ensuring that abortions were safe, legal, and rare. Instead they have decided a political posturing popularity contest is the way to go. That kind of campaign only serves one purpose - to draw attention to, and to promote their own public profile.

So you're similarly against the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, I presume?

If you're against aspirational declarations, that's one big one right there.

As for a popularity contest, maybe you might like to think about why that is? Why abortion rights, like homosexual rights, seem to have gone from a hanging offence in the days when women re second class citizens, to being pretty much universally accepted in nearly all western democracies?

Could it be that once the mentality that considered women to be men's possessions disappears, it gradually becomes evident that apt he right not to be pregnant is a human right, albeit one that only women require?

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I have a problem with NGO's, and anyone really, who refuses to recognise that the unborn is a human life, and as such the principle of human dignity, upon which all human rights are based, applies.

Otherwise, human rights are meaningless, of no value, if they can be discarded so easily depending upon a popular vote. Amnesty International are just engaged in a popularity contest. If they were actually interested in human rights, one would expect that they would be campaigning for all the things you mention above that actually are human rights. Otherwise, what's the point in legislating for abortion when the people who need to avail of abortion services can't access them, and when they do, the standard of service provided is somewhere between almost non-existent and abysmal.

If Amnesty were doing their job properly, they would be more interested in ensuring that abortions were safe, legal, and rare. Instead they have decided a political posturing popularity contest is the way to go. That kind of campaign only serves one purpose - to draw attention to, and to promote their own public profile.

How can you support abortion at all then when it is the ending of a potential life? You can't support abortion on one hand and then say the unborn are entitled to the same human rights as the born. The fundamental human right is the right to life but Amnesty like other groups who support human rights including abortion are only referring to the living.

I'm not sure what you mean by people not having access to abortion, if it's legally available here it will be accessible. What circumstances are you talking about? Amnesty does want safe, legal abortion, it recognizes that illegal abortion is one of the biggest causes of maternal death. Their focus is the needs of the pregnant woman which is exactly as it should be.

Loafing Oaf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If Amnesty were doing their job properly, they would be more interested in ensuring that abortions were safe, legal, and rare. Instead they have decided a political posturing popularity contest is the way to go. That kind of campaign only serves one purpose - to draw attention to, and to promote their own public profile.

You're not making much sense here, to me anyway. The whole point of Amnesty's campaigning on abortion in Ireland and other countries is to ensure it is safe and legal...

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Imma stop you right there.

The sole and only purpose for procuring an abortion is to end a pregnancy.

I'll follow you down this rabbit hole, but only briefly, in response to your accusation of hypocrisy.

You're correct, but only in a quibbling pedantic sense, when you say that the right not to be pregnant isn't the same thing as the right to an abortion. The reason being, the right not to be pregnant logically encompasses the right not to get pregnant if you don't want to, and the right to stop being pregnant if you discover that you are and don't want to be.

Now, the right not to become pregnant is one that was fought for long and hard, and largely in the face of similar opposition to what we're seeing now. We tend to take that right for granted: very few people would be such insufferable arseholes as to suggest to a woman that she doesn't have a right not to become pregnant against her will.

I'm no fan of quibbling pedantry any more than you are, so when you're talking about this whole 'right not to be pregnant', I'm wondering is there something I'm missing that you can't just say 'the right to avail of an abortion'?

So, having lost that battle, the forces of patriarchy have moved on and are now declaring that the remainder of the right not to be pregnant is unavailable to them.

I'm going to have to stop you there this time, and refer you back to the statement I made yesterday that in survey after survey, it's actually more men who are pro-choice than women, and women it appears can't agree on fcukall between themselves:

Some women who identify as feminist are pro-choice. Some women who identify as feminist are pro-life. It's worse than a game of identity politics bingo where every opinion is preceded by the words "As a..."

Painful.

So, back to the point at hand. You were busy claiming that unenumerated rights don't exist. At least, I think that's what you were claiming - somehow it turned into a conversation about if Amnesty are for it then you're agin it, or something.

Yep, it shouldn't come as a surprise that people are very fond of twisting what someone says in order to claim moral superiority. It's quite simple:

I have always advocated that women should have the right to an abortion. I have said as much numerous times already on this thread. Yet even now posters insist that I must be anti-choice because my fundamental focus has always been on the principles of human dignity, upon which human rights are based. Disregard the dignity of human life, and human rights then become meaningless, because they are of no value.

That's why I don't support the stance that amnesty have taken on the issue, because they have forgotten the values that underlie human rights, in favour of pumping up their own public profile. I guess when profits are down because of less donations...

On that point: do you believe that a woman has the right not to become pregnant if she doesn't want to? If not, why not? If so, where is that right enumerated?

What is it with this "right not to become pregnant" business? Take a quick skim through my posts even on just this thread alone, because quite frankly having to justify myself every time I give an opinion is getting more than a little tiresome, and having to explain and justify my stance to people who have read the thread already, or should have read the thread already, shows me that people really aren't all that interested in anyone else's opinions but their own.

That doesn't come as any surprise tbh.

One eyed Jack

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You're not making much sense here, to me anyway. The whole point of Amnesty's campaigning on abortion in Ireland and other countries is to ensure it is safe and legal...

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree then on Amnesty's priorities as we see them.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm no fan of quibbling pedantry any more than you are, so when you're talking about this whole 'right not to be pregnant', I'm wondering is there something I'm missing that you can't just say 'the right to avail of an abortion'?

Because the right to avail of an abortion stems from the more fundamental right, which is whether or not to be pregnant.

I'm going to have to stop you there this time, and refer you back to the statement I made yesterday that in survey after survey, it's actually more men who are pro-choice than women, and women it appears can't agree on fcukall between themselves:

You seem to be operating on the assumption that only men can be patriarchal.

What is it with this "right not to become pregnant" business?

It's one half of the right to choose not to be pregnant, as I've already explained - and you avoided the question.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So you're similarly against the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, I presume?

If you're against aspirational declarations, that's one big one right there.

Yes volchista, yes, I'm against the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Of course I am. Must be sure... :rolleyes:

volchitsa wrote: »

As for a popularity contest, maybe you might like to think about why that is? Why abortion rights, like homosexual rights, seem to have gone from a hanging offence in the days when women re second class citizens, to being pretty much universally accepted in nearly all western democracies?

Could it be that once the mentality that considered women to be men's possessions disappears, it gradually becomes evident that apt he right not to be pregnant is a human right, albeit one that only women require?

It could well be any of the above volchista, or it could be because they want to get funding to send pink fluffy chickens to colonise Mars, who the fcuk knows reallly?

eviltwin wrote: »

How can you support abortion at all then when it is the ending of a potential life? You can't support abortion on one hand and then say the unborn are entitled to the same human rights as the born. The fundamental human right is the right to life but Amnesty like other groups who support human rights including abortion are only referring to the living.

Rather than pull apart and correct everything that's wrong with the above paragraph, I'm just going to quote from a previous exchange I had with volchista on this issue some time ago, that I have also posted already in this thread:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think legislation specifically in relation to abortion should encompass a woman's fundamental human right to her bodily integrity, and to that end I would argue that it is a woman's right to her quality of life should supercede any perception that any form of life should have a fundamental right to life.

There are an infinite number of risks involved in pregnancy, from conception to giving birth, and the unborn has no responsibility, while the woman is charged with all the responsibility, and yet under current legislation which focuses on the equal right to life of both, one still has more responsibility than the other, yet they are both viewed as equal in terms of what rights are afforded to them.

I see that sort of arbitration as dehumanising to both a woman, and to the unborn, as it offers no recognition that not only are they separately individuals in their own right, but that one is dependent upon the other, and the 8th amendment supports this position that they only be viewed in terms of their existence, as opposed to one having contributed to society already, and the unborn with only the potential to contribute to society, upon provision that the woman should give birth to them.

Effectively what the 8th amendment seems to do IMO is that it places the right to life of the unborn above the rights of a person who is actually already living, and it's that position which I find ethically unjustifiable in terms of the fundamental human rights we afford to living persons upon whom we balance their rights with their responsibilities.

If someone is to be charged with a responsibility, then it should be ultimately down to them whether they choose to accept that responsibility, or whether they choose not to accept that responsibility and instead choose to forego that responsibility by means of availing of a termination of the pregnancy.

Legislation should not exist where the State can force women to not alone remain pregnant against their will, but also force women to give birth against their will. That, to me at least, is a manoeuvre I consider to be ethically abhorrent.

volchitsa wrote: »

I think that's a very well-argued position, OEJ, it's clear and logical. Thanks.

Is there any point, before birth, at which you consider that those rights do become equivalent in some way?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There isn't IMO, because the arbitrary point is the moment at which the woman gives birth. Up until that point, the unborn is exactly that.

That's not to say that the unborn shouldn't be afforded the appropriate dignity and respect for human life that we would afford to all human life in death. I don't think we should dehumanise and reduce any human life to merely just 'a clump of cells', but we shouldn't IMO place the life of the unborn equal to or even above the life of the person who is charged with responsibility for giving birth to the unborn life.

I think if they were given a choice, and by that I mean an actual choice, not one with terms and conditions attached, that there would be far less risk of traumatising a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. I think if we were able to promote understanding in Irish society of affording dignity and respect for all human life, including the unborn, even in death, that it would reduce both the stigma, and the risk of further trauma which would negatively affect a woman's quality of life, which would mean that she would not feel she was forced into a position where not only would she feel she had to remain pregnant against her will, but also that she wouldn't feel she was forced to give birth against her will, to a child she didn't want.

There are numerous indignities and lack of respect for human life involved in the current legislation where a woman is forced to give birth unless she is deemed suicidal (and even then being granted a termination of their pregnancy doesn't mean the unborn ceases to live, as the pregnancy can also be considered terminated by caesarean section), to a human being whom is unwanted and rejected by their biological parent, so that human beings quality of life is compromised from the moment they're born.

There's absolutely no dignity nor respect for human life in that scenario as far as I can see, it's merely making other people suffer when there is no reason why we should make them suffer, let alone prolong the indignity they suffer on top of everything else.

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by people not having access to abortion, if it's legally available here it will be accessible. What circumstances are you talking about?

I'd like to believe that eviltwin, I really would, but unfortunately as has been demonstrated time and time again in these sorts of cases, it's never as straightforward as that, and as for the circumstances I'm talking about, I gave some examples already in a recent post:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

...

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.

eviltwin wrote: »

Amnesty does want safe, legal abortion, it recognizes that illegal abortion is one of the biggest causes of maternal death. Their focus is the needs of the pregnant woman which is exactly as it should be.

Well like I said to the other poster with regard to Amnesty's priorities - we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because the right to avail of an abortion stems from the more fundamental right, which is whether or not to be pregnant. You seem to be operating on the assumption that only men can be patriarchal. It's one half of the right to choose not to be pregnant, as I've already explained - and you avoided the question.

I'm sorry Oscar but your whole 'right not to be pregnant' stuff confuses me. I don't understand where you're coming from, and I don't understand the what you're actually getting at. I've never heard the term 'right not to be pregnant' before now tbh, can't get my head around it at all so I genuinely can't answer your question. I'd only be taking a stab in the dark at a question I don't understand, and that'd just be stupid IMO because it wouldn't offer you anything. Maybe if you read the exchange above that I had with volchista (not the fluffy pink ducks one, that was "stupid question deserves a stupid answer" stuff, I mean the other one), you might get a better insight into my position.

aloyisious

There seem's to be a debate going on here on whether women have a "right not to be pregnant". I assume that such a right does NOT have to be written into law for men (mostly) to accept it should be seen as a basic civil right. I reckon I can safely assume that it encompasses the "right not to be made pregnant" as well. I assume that most people here, including those who are in opposition to abortion, similarly see that there is no right existing for men to make women pregnant whenever they choose without any consideration to the woman whatsoever.

If anyone stands up and argues that women do not have any right to refuse to be pregnant or to be made pregnant, I assume they have enough sense to see that that's akin to saying any man can insist on making women pregnant whenever he chooses and the women will have absolutely no rights in the matter. People may quibble and say "I never said/meant that" but the end result effect on other men is that that is what they will understood was said/meant. Men do tend to think emotively below the belt when it comes to sexual desire, and not above their belts with their brains.

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

There seem's to be a debate going on here on whether women have a "right not to be pregnant". I assume that such a right does NOT have to be written into law for men (mostly) to accept it should be seen as a basic civil right. I reckon I can safely assume that it encompasses the "right not to be made pregnant" as well. I assume that most people here, including those who are in opposition to abortion, similarly see that there is no right existing for men to make women pregnant whenever they choose without any consideration to the woman whatsoever.

This whole concept of "right not to" reminds me of the concept of positive and negative rights. Human rights are a positive affirmation of the rights we afford all human life. They aren't written as "the right not to be discriminated against" for example. So this whole "right not to be pregnant" makes no sense.

If anyone stands up and argues that women do not have any right to refuse to be pregnant or to be made pregnant, I assume they have enough sense to see that that's akin to saying any man can insist on making women pregnant whenever he chooses and the women will have absolutely no rights in the matter. People may quibble and say "I never said/meant that" but the end result effect on other men is that that is what they will understood was said/meant.

But the right not to be pregnant doesn't exist, anywhere! Christ, it's like saying everyone has the human right not to jump off a cliff! Well jesus thanks for that, I'm sure it'll come in useful if I ever decide not to jump off a cliff!

It's meaningless!!

Men do tend to think emotively below the belt when it comes to sexual desire, and not above their belts with their brains.

Terrible generalisation there aloysius.

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This whole concept of "right not to" reminds me of the concept of positive and negative rights. Human rights are a positive affirmation of the rights we afford all human life. They aren't written as "the right not to be discriminated against" for example. So this whole "right not to be pregnant" makes no sense.





But the right not to be pregnant doesn't exist, anywhere! Christ, it's like saying everyone has the human right not to jump off a cliff! Well jesus thanks for that, I'm sure it'll come in useful if I ever decide not to jump off a cliff!

It's meaningless!!





Terrible generalisation there aloysius.

It was made to attract attention and succeeded, on a "grab them by the balls and their mind will follow" basis.

Now while the right not to be pregnant may not exist in writing but it's naturally linked to the generally accepted right of a woman to decline to have sex, to not to be made pregnant, as surely as night follows day. I used "may not exist in writing" advisedly cos sure as hell is hot, some-one will have written something on that lines some-where. I'm waiting for a Brehon-law expert (or some-one similar) to pop up out of the woodwork and say it is in written law.

To argue that there is a complete and utter difference between "a right not to be pregnant" AND "a right not to be made pregnant" is just splitting hairs, like some lawyer. The use of the words by a woman, any woman, is to indicate clearly a refusal by her to be made pregnant.

Re your "But the right not to be pregnant doesn't exist, anywhere! Christ, it's like saying everyone has the human right not to jump off a cliff! Well jesus thanks for that, I'm sure it'll come in useful if I ever decide not to jump off a cliff! It's meaningless!!", - have you run that past any women you know to see if they think it credible for a man to say to them "you have no right not to be pregnant" AND "no right not to be made pregnant". I reckon they might think "Jesus, is this guy saying to me "I can make you pregnant and you have no right to tell me NO, i DON'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT, or I DON'T WANT TO BE MADE PREGNANT".


Does anyone credibly require either or both sentences to be put into written law for the sake of debate on abortion rights?

PS. I'm logging out now for the night as I'm for the birds. I'm going to listen to the dawn chorus with Derek and the Twitchers.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm sorry Oscar but your whole 'right not to be pregnant' stuff confuses me. I don't understand where you're coming from, and I don't understand the what you're actually getting at. I've never heard the term 'right not to be pregnant' before now tbh, can't get my head around it at all so I genuinely can't answer your question.

You'd swear I was presenting you with a dissertation on string theory and asking for your view on it.

There isn't a word for "not pregnant" that I'm aware of in order to create the positive right that you're insisting on. If you desperately need one, let's go with the right to bodily integrity - but that's just creating new chinks for the angel-counters to wriggle into.

If you're still confused about what the right not to be pregnant could possibly mean, maybe just spend some time thinking about it. Hell, maybe ask a woman whether the choice whether or not to be pregnant should be hers or someone else's; I'm sure she'll set you straight.

What really puzzles the hell out of me is how I could possibly be having this conversation with someone who believes that abortion should be available on demand at any time up to the moment of birth. It's strange that someone who claims to be so rabidly pro-choice should put quite so much effort into arguing with other pro-choice people, and yet get extremely defensive about the idea of arguing with pro-life people.

That's a lot harder for me to understand than the really completely straightforward idea that a woman has the right to decide whether or not she should be pregnant.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

You'd swear I was presenting you with a dissertation on string theory and asking for your view on it.

There isn't a word for "not pregnant" that I'm aware of in order to create the positive right that you're insisting on. If you desperately need one, let's go with the right to bodily integrity - but that's just creating new chinks for the angel-counters to wriggle into.

If you're still confused about what the right not to be pregnant could possibly mean, maybe just spend some time thinking about it. Hell, maybe ask a woman whether the choice whether or not to be pregnant should be hers or someone else's; I'm sure she'll set you straight.

What really puzzles the hell out of me is how I could possibly be having this conversation with someone who believes that abortion should be available on demand at any time up to the moment of birth. It's strange that someone who claims to be so rabidly pro-choice should put quite so much effort into arguing with other pro-choice people, and yet get extremely defensive about the idea of arguing with pro-life people.

That's a lot harder for me to understand than the really completely straightforward idea that a woman has the right to decide whether or not she should be pregnant.

Firstly, there's nothing remotely rabid about advocating that a woman should have full control over her own body at any stage in her pregnancy. It's a position that is advocated by many, including Hillary Clinton.

Secondly, with regard to arguing with people who identify as pro-choice - I expect people who are anti-choice to come out with some of the worst and most unbelievable bullshìt. That's why I usually don't bother to entertain them. I hold people who identify as pro-choice to a higher standard, because if the issues around abortion and women's reproductive rights are ever to be understood by people in this country, I'd rather they weren't fed a constant stream of bullshìt by the same people I have to associate with in order to ensure that people understand all the issues involved.

Absolam

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. 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.

If we could cut to the chase; show me where that right is written in the Constitution, legislation, or jurisprudence and I'll stop arguing it doesn't exist.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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 idea that want you want somehow is a right because you want it also appears to be one that has a great deal of currency in some quarters. I prefer to stick to to the idea that rights are conferred and vindicated by States, because any right that isn't is worthless, it's no more than an an aspiration, and not a right at all. Your notion that this is somehow connected to 'the undercurrent of misogyny that informs most if not all of it" actually isn't my problem; it never bothers me at all. It's obviously yours because you're the one that imagines it. Now you may think that in some places a right not to be pregnant is an interpreted right; and sure, show me the jurisiprudence that demonstrates that right has been conferred by inference and I'll agree it's inferred in that State (though I think you'll find the one you're thinking of decided the right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, not that a woman had a right to not be pregnant.)

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

Whereas it perfectly legitimate (without any nonsense about patriarchy at all) to state that a right is a legal fact; and that way we don't have to worry about framing an argument for your strawman idea. Handy, eh?