Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

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.

In turn, I'd suggest all three of those assumptions are pretty foolhardy I think you'll find a reasonably large body of people who will say that a 'right' that isn't established as a right by the State isn't a basic civil right until the State says it is; it's an aspiration to a basic (or otherwise) civil right. And so on for the other two assumptions. Sure you can see something as a basic civil right,but for it to be a basic civil right, yes, it does need to be written into law. Unlike other rights concepts, such as human or natural rights, in which people are thought to acquire rights inherently, whether from God, nature, the FSM, or whatever floats a particular hippies boat, civil rights must be given and guaranteed by the power of the State.

aloyisious wrote: »

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.

I don't see how it's akin at all, though you seem to be sliding ever so gently from refusing to be pregnant to an inexact correspondence with an insistence on making pregnant. I think the correct comparison would be refusing to be pregnant vs insisting on being pregnant, which is a tough comparison, because obviously any man would have a tricky time insisting on a woman being pregnant without engaging in one crime or another to achieve what he wants. Of course a State can simply make it illegal to intentionally destroy unborn human life, but I guess that's a difference between a man trying to decide what a woman must do, and a State deciding what it's citizens may do.

I'll agree that a woman should have a right to refuse to be made pregnant (or at least, that there ought to be a means of prohibiting others from making a woman pregnant against her will, as there is to at least some degree), per your male comparison, and a man shouldn't be able to insist (as is the case currently) on making women pregnant whenever he chooses. But a right to refuse to be pregnant is somewhat different. Of course, a woman who refuses to be made pregnant actually has the protection of rape legislation, so it seems that obviates a large part of that particular aspect of your argument just fine.
I'm not sure it is quibbling to point out that the facts as they stand are that a woman doesn't have a right to not be pregnant, and yet still a man can't insist on making women pregnant whenever he chooses. So the one fairly apparently is not akin to the other

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Imma stop you right there. I'm getting the impression that you're equating being specific and exact with being quibbling and pedantic. The thing is, you're talking about legal, enforcable, concepts here. Pedantry is the difference between prison terms and freedom in this context; even life and death for some. 'Quibbling' over such things is pretty much a major function of our judicial system. So when someone is prosecuted for raping someone else, trying to prosecute them for infringing someones right not to be pregnant is going to result in a rapist walking free. Far better to stick (quibblingly and pedantically) to the facts, and prosecute for Rape as prohibited by the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981, or the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990, as the (pedantic) case may be.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Ah now, you don't have to be an insufferable arsehole to point out that a woman doesn't have a right not to become pregnant against her will, you just have to be acquainted with the facts! Women often become pregnant against their will; many resort to abortion as a result.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Sounds like an epic battle. In your mind do the forces of patriarchy have crowns and beards and ride horses whilst whirling swords above their heads? That's the kind of picture you're painting for me here; they're faced with Amazonian warriors with spears in one hand, and in the other a piece of paper declaring they'd rather die that be forced to hold a baby to their hip by the forces of patriarchy. It's a pretty fantastic image

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Would it be ok if we could quibblingly (and pedantically) point out there is a difference between enumerated and unenumerated rights, and expressly stated rights and interpreted rights? You seem to have substituted the former for the latter along the way and they're quite different things.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

Well, if we set aside beliefs for a minute and stick to facts; no a woman does not have a right not to become pregnant if she doesn't want to, as demonstrated by the fact it is not enumerated anywhere. Under the principle Nulla poena sine lege, as long as contraception is not illegal in Ireland, anyone (not just women) may avail of it. The fact that they do doesn't amount to a right not to become pregnant.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I'll agree that a woman should have a right to refuse to be made pregnant (or at least, that there ought to be a means of prohibiting others from making a woman pregnant against her will, as there is to at least some degree), per your male comparison, and a man shouldn't be able to insist (as is the case currently) on making women pregnant whenever he chooses. But a right to refuse to be pregnant is somewhat different. Of course, a woman who refuses to be made pregnant actually has the protection of rape legislation, so it seems that obviates a large part of that particular aspect of your argument just fine.

I've cut out Para's 1 & 2 of your post as the nitty-gritty of my debate with One eyed jack is in your third. !. It seem's that you are insisting that a right has to be written into law for any person to have regard for another person in respect of any act or deed. You appear to write (maybe I misread what you mean) that a man is able to insist on making women pregnant whenever he chooses. Is it written and recognized anywhere in current Irish law that man, any man, has the right to make a woman pregnant any time he feel's like doing so?

You say that a woman who refuses to be made pregnant has the protection of rape legislation. One snag with that is that rape legislation is an "after the deed is done" law and doesn't actually act as a stopper to any man raping a woman, so that piece of legislation doesn't stop a man in his carnal tracks. In so far as the mention of rape has an actual connect with the issue of abortion and this debate , it would be re a woman made pregnant by way of being a rape victim asking for an abortion as a result, again an "after the deed" fact.

Re a refusal to being pregnant and a refusal to being made pregnant, I can see that neither you and One eyed jack on the one side, and I on the other, are going to agree on the point that I (unlike you both) see them as being one and the same. Both of you can continue using what I see as a lawyerly non-existent argument to distract from the issue of women having rights to abortion. I revert back to the state of not debating with you unless I choose.

Mise le meas, aloyisious.

oscarBravo

OK, so we have two people - one of whom protests loudly about being pro-choice, and one who very clearly isn't - arguing vehemently against the notion that a person has a right to choose not to be pregnant.

Apparently, if something can happen to you, that means you don't have a right to have it not happen (which in turn suggests that the fact that you can be murdered means that you don't have a right to life).

Apparently, the right to access and use contraception is completely irrelevant to the question of a right to choose not to become pregnant.



OK, I can see the logic behind being pro-life and believing that a woman has no right to decide whether or not to be pregnant - I disagree with it, but let's leave that aside - but I'm deeply puzzled at the doublethink required to claim that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion right up to the day of delivery, but damn her eyes, she has no right to choose whether or not to be pregnant.

aloyisious

What are the thoughts on women who face up to an ectopic pregnancy? Would the opponents of abortion in general make an exception where the pregnant woman faces a strong chance of maternal death due to her pregnancy being ectopic, or would they say there are NO exceptions to the rule? I am referring specifically to one's PERSONAL stance on abortion is this debate AND NOT on the niceties of the law or guidelines.

Before anyone start's pointing out the obvious to me after reading the report below, please don't bother. I've made clear the point i wrote about, ectopic pregnacy, maternal death as a result and the choice of saving the mother or the feotus.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/as-i-woke-up-each-morning-my-pregnancy-screamed-at-me-1.2621054

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I've cut out Para's 1 & 2 of your post as the nitty-gritty of my debate with One eyed jack is in your third. !. It seem's that you are insisting that a right has to be written into law for any person to have regard for another person in respect of any act or deed.

No not at all. per my other posts in reply to you, I'm saying in order for it to be a right it must be set out in law. I never said anything at all about what is required for any person to have regard for another person in respect of any act or deed, you seem to have just introduced that.

aloyisious wrote: »

You appear to write (maybe I misread what you mean) that a man is able to insist on making women pregnant whenever he chooses. Is it written and recognized anywhere in current Irish law that man, any man, has the right to have sex with a woman any time he feel's like doing so?

Yes, you did indeed misread what I wrote. I wrote

Absolam wrote: »

I'll agree <...> a man shouldn't be able to insist (as is the case currently) on making women pregnant whenever he chooses.

aloyisious wrote: »

You say that a woman who refuses to be made pregnant has the protection of rape legislation. One snag with that is that rape legislation is an "after the deed is done" law and doesn't actually act as a stopper to any man raping a woman, so that piece of legislation doesn't stop a man in his carnal tracks. In so far as the mention of rape has an actual connect with the issue of abortion and this debate , it would be re a woman made pregnant by way of being a rape victim asking for an abortion as a result, again an "after the deed" fact.

So, you're saying that rape legislation, like all other criminal legislation, punishes a criminal act that has taken place? Sounds about right.

aloyisious wrote: »

Re a refusal to being pregnant and a refusal to being made pregnant, I can see that neither you and One eyed jack on the one side, and I on the other, are going to agree on the point that I (unlike you both) see them as being one and the same. Both of you can continue using what I see as a lawyerly non-existent argument to distract from the issue of women having rights to abortion. I revert back to the state of not debating with you unless I choose.

That sounds about right as well

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so we have two people - one of whom protests loudly about being pro-choice, and one who very clearly isn't - arguing vehemently against the notion that a person has a right to choose not to be pregnant.

Apparently, if something can happen to you, that means you don't have a right to have it not happen (which in turn suggests that the fact that you can be murdered means that you don't have a right to life).

Apparently, the right to access and use contraception is completely irrelevant to the question of a right to choose not to become pregnant.



OK, I can see the logic behind being pro-life and believing that a woman has no right to decide whether or not to be pregnant - I disagree with it, but let's leave that aside - but I'm deeply puzzled at the doublethink required to claim that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion right up to the day of delivery, but damn her eyes, she has no right to choose whether or not to be pregnant.

It's the way you're wording it Oscar. There are laws to prevent someone from impregnating a woman against her will. People can choose to break those laws and a woman can become pregnant as a result of their actions.

Women can only exercise a certain amount of control as to whether they become pregnant or not, that's just a simple biological fact. They can't actually choose to become pregnant or not of their own volition without an outside actor.

They cannot choose to end their pregnancy without acting in a way that will harm either herself, the unborn, or both. In some cases, the option of an abortion is available as a means to end her pregnancy, and she has a right to exercise that option under certain provisions.

That is not a right not to be pregnant. It is a right to avail of an abortion to end her pregnancy. The right not to be pregnant is something you just made up. It is not recognised as a right in any country I'm aware of, and it isn't any part of the UNDHR either.


(ps: I would never normally identify myself as pro-choice/pro-life/anti-choice/whatever else, let alone protest loudly about it, as all lobbyists are as bad as each other IME, but purely for the purposes of this discussion, I would be identifiable as pro-choice, to make it easier for other people who need binary labels because they only think in binary terms)

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so we have two people - one of whom protests loudly about being pro-choice, and one who very clearly isn't - arguing vehemently against the notion that a person has a right to choose not to be pregnant. Apparently, if something can happen to you, that means you don't have a right to have it not happen (which in turn suggests that the fact that you can be murdered means that you don't have a right to life).

You understand that that doesn't actually make sense though, right? The fact that something can happen to you doesn't mean you have a right to have it not happen, and even if you do have a right (like say, having a right to life) just having a right doesn't stop someone from ignoring that right (like say, by killing you). How you manage to come to the conclusion that this then means you don't have a right, when the right is clearly expressed in law for everyone to see (unlike your notion of a right to choose not to be pregnant, which clearly isn't) is fairly astonishing.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apparently, the right to access and use contraception is completely irrelevant to the question of a right to choose not to become pregnant.

Interesting. Apparently, that's a new right that you haven't put forward for consideration before. Can you show us where the right to access and use contraception is set out? I really hope it won't be a right to privacy you show us

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, I can see the logic behind being pro-life and believing that a woman has no right to decide whether or not to be pregnant - I disagree with it, but let's leave that aside - but I'm deeply puzzled at the doublethink required to claim that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion right up to the day of delivery, but damn her eyes, she has no right to choose whether or not to be pregnant.

I'm surprised you can come to conclusions like the one above but fail to appreciate doublethink in others. Still, may I point out that you're comparing 'should' be 'allowed' to do something with having a 'right' to do something? Whatever is not prohibited is allowed, but a right must be conferred. And it is perfectly easy to think something should be allowed (whether it is or isn't actually allowed), whilst being aware that certain rights either exist in law, or don't. That, unlike your rights notion above, only requires straightforward thinking.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

So, you're saying that rape legislation, like all other criminal legislation, punishes a criminal act that has taken place? Sounds about right.
That sounds about right as well

So how the **** is that protection for women from being made pregnant? This is what you wrote on the subject: Of course, a woman who refuses to be made pregnant actually has the protection of rape legislation. And NO. that is NOT what I wrote. Stop trying to deliberately mislead people.

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

So how the **** is that protection for women from being made pregnant?

If it's against the law to commit rape, then that's intended to protect women from the possibility of being impregnated against their will. There's no way to actually legislate for protection to prevent women from being made pregnant. It usually happens as a natural consequence of sexual intercourse, and not even the most effective method of contraception is 100% effective even if sexual intercourse is consensual.

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If it's against the law to commit rape, then that's intended to protect women from the possibility of being impregnated against their will. There's no way to actually legislate for protection to prevent women from being made pregnant. It usually happens as a natural consequence of sexual intercourse, and not even the most effective method of contraception is 100% effective even if sexual intercourse is consensual.

Regretfully, if you read what Absolom actually wrote, you will see that he stated the rape legislation prevented women from being made pregnant. Quote; Of course, a woman who refuses to be made pregnant actually has the protection of rape legislation: unquote. That legislation can only apply and be used AFTER the rape, so it does NOT prevent pregnancy. It's about as useful as a holed condom in reference to preventing a rape or pregnancy. It has no relevance to the prevention of pregnancy, so why Absolom brought it into this debate is curious. IMO, it's distracting from the debate on abortion. I already wrote somewhere above about posters trying to distract others from the debate on abortion.

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

Regretfully, if you read what Absolom actually wrote, you will see that he stated the rape legislation prevented women from being made pregnant

That isn't even close to what Absalom actually said at all though.

I have to say I'm very surprised at some posters here in the one forum where I expect reason and rational thought to be the foundation of any discussion, yet it appears that logic, reason and facts get thrown out the window in favour of making it up as they go along, ignoring facts which don't suit them, appeals to emotion fallacies, and imaginary perceived "rights" that aren't recognised in law as rights at all.

There's a difference between rights that are actually written in law, and ideas that posters believe should be rights. Just because they believe something, does not make it a reality, or does that standard not apply when it doesn't suit their own argument?

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

I already wrote somewhere above about posters trying to distract others from the debate on abortion.

I actually agree with you on this point. The whole "right not to be pregnant" stuff is completely irrelevant to the discussion on abortion, because in seeking an abortion, it's understood that a woman is already pregnant. Telling a pregnant woman she has a right not to be pregnant is likely to have her put you through a window for being such a pedant.

I can't say I'd blame her.

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That isn't even close to what Absalom actually said at all though.

I have to say I'm very surprised at some posters here in the one forum where I expect reason and rational thought to be the foundation of any discussion, yet it appears that logic, reason and facts get thrown out the window in favour of making it up as they go along, ignoring facts which don't suit them, appeals to emotion fallacies, and imaginary perceived "rights" that aren't recognised in law as rights at all.

There's a difference between rights that are actually written in law, and ideas that posters believe should be rights. Just because they believe something, does not make it a reality, or does that standard not apply when it doesn't suit their own argument?

One cannot help in wishing for other humans to respect another's body, even if there is no written law enforcing such. To do otherwise is to admit the law of the jungle has won. I find nothing wrong or fallacious in perceived rights being recognized and heeded, when such perceived rights prevent jungle-law from applying. As it's already been posted here and on other threads when "rights" are debated, it often happens that the mention of such rights existence is part of the route through which they eventually get to be enacted into law. We both know that that is the route through which rights were written into the constitution and statute law about the rights of the unborn and pregnant women.

Should we use the argument that such rights should not be debated upon, merely because it doesn't suit the O/P? If so, maybe we should shut down this debate to opinions being posted because it doesn't suit others arguments?

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

One cannot help in wishing for other humans to respect another's body, even if there is no written law enforcing such.

But there are laws enforcing such! The existence of those laws is intended to act as a deterrent. People cannot be charged with violating those laws if they haven't violated them, and only when they do violate them, can a person be charged with an offence.

To do otherwise is to admit the law of the jungle has won. I find nothing wrong or fallacious in perceived rights being recognized and heeded, when such perceived rights prevent jungle-law from applying.

But just because a person believes they have a right to do something (they perceive a right), does not mean they actually have that right. That is the application of jungle law.

As it's already been posted here and on other threads when "rights" are debated, it often happens that the mention of such rights existence is part of the route through which they eventually get to be enacted into law. We both know that that is the route through which rights were written into the constitution and statute law about the rights of the unborn and pregnant women.

But they were argued from the position that people should have those rights, not that people actually have those rights. There wouldn't be any need for any discussion if people already actually had those rights.

Should we use the argument that such rights should not be debated upon, merely because it doesn't suit the O/P? If so, maybe we should shut down this debate to opinions being posted because it doesn't suit others arguments?

Of course we shouldn't shut down the discussion on granting people more rights, but it is fallacious, and entirely misleading, to argue as though people already have those rights, and to try and argue as though the right to life of the unborn doesn't exist.

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But there are laws enforcing such! The existence of those laws is intended to act as a deterrent. People cannot be charged with violating those laws if they haven't violated them, and only when they do violate them, can a person be charged with an offence.





But just because a person believes they have a right to do something (they perceive a right), does not mean they actually have that right. That is the application of jungle law.





But they were argued from the position that people should have those rights, not that people actually have those rights. There wouldn't be any need for any discussion if people already actually had those rights.





Of course we shouldn't shut down the discussion on granting people more rights, but it is fallacious, and entirely misleading, to argue as though people already have those rights, and to try and argue as though the right to life of the unborn doesn't exist.

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

Totally agree with you on this part of your para 1 re laws and deterrence. As I have NOT stated anyone can be charged with violating a law when they hadn't, your writing the following "People cannot be charged with violating those laws if they haven't violated them, and only when they do violate them, can a person be charged with an offence" is curious. Heavens above, I wonder what could have put such a thought in your head that that could ever occur in our country.

Re your para 2 "But just because a person believes they have a right to do something (they perceive a right), does not mean they actually have that right. That is the application of jungle law", following that train of thought would make any thought or act of kindness an act of jungle law, turning the whole of human sensibility on it's head - turn's gaze toward's Leinster House.

Re para 3, perhaps you might copy an example that might go some way to explaining what it is you mean to others here who might be confused. May I suggest you use Manifest Destiny or Slavery as examples?

Re para 4, please explain what you mean to other people who might be discombobulated by what you wrote. I'm not as i know "Sir Humphrey-talk" when I read it.

Your's non-irritably etc....
aloyisious.

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

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

Totally agree with you on this part of your para 1 re laws and deterrence. As I have NOT stated anyone can be charged with violating a law when they hadn't, your writing the following "People cannot be charged with violating those laws if they haven't violated them, and only when they do violate them, can a person be charged with an offence" is curious. Heavens above, I wonder what could have put such a thought in your head that that could ever occur in our country.

Preventing someone from impregnating a woman before they actually impregnate a woman through unlawful means is impossible. It would be veering towards thought crime territory.

Re your para 2 "But just because a person believes they have a right to do something (they perceive a right), does not mean they actually have that right. That is the application of jungle law", following that train of thought would make any thought or act of kindness an act of jungle law, turning the whole of human sensibility on it's head - turn's gaze toward's Leinster House.

Impregnating a woman through unlawful means is hardly an act of kindness, even if the person believes they have a right to impregnate a woman by unlawful means because they believe it to be an act of kindness.

Re para 3, perhaps you might copy an example that might go some way to explaining what it is you mean to others here who might be confused. May I suggest you use Manifest Destiny or Slavery as examples?

I can use the example of abortion. Some posters here are arguing as though women in Ireland already have a right to avail of an abortion. They don't. Arguing as though they do, is misleading. People should be informing other people with the facts, not what they would like to be facts.

Re para 4, please explain what you mean to other people who might be discombobulated by what you wrote. I'm not as i know "Sir Humphrey-talk" when I read it.

Your's non-irritably etc....
aloyisious.

People should stick to arguing reality as it actually is, as opposed to their own individual perception of reality which actually has no grounding in reality. We don't get to ignore laws we don't like. Otherwise the laws are never going to change, and people will think from reading some posts that they are entitled to do things which in reality, they aren't.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

So how the **** is that protection for women from being made pregnant? This is what you wrote on the subject: Of course, a woman who refuses to be made pregnant actually has the protection of rape legislation. And NO. that is NOT what I wrote. Stop trying to deliberately mislead people.

I've no idea what you think you're claiming I say you wrote and am trying to mislead people with; to avoid misleading anyone, you should probably quote it. Until then I'll be charitable and put it down to your imagination.
Anyways, I said,

Absolam wrote: »

I'll agree that a woman should have a right to refuse to be made pregnant (or at least, that there ought to be a means of prohibiting others from making a woman pregnant against her will, as there is to at least some degree)

And that prohibition is rape legislation. Then I said

Absolam wrote: »

But a right to refuse to be pregnant is somewhat different. Of course, a woman who refuses to be made pregnant actually has the protection of rape legislation, so it seems that obviates a large part of that particular aspect of your argument just fine.

I see you're avoiding the distinction between a right to refuse to be pregnant and a a refusal to be made pregnant for whatever reasons you have; but the protection that a woman has in rape legislation is the same protection all of us receive from criminal legislation. The law can't take action against someone for something they want to do, or intend to do (though it may for something they plan or conspire to do). Only for something they actually do.

aloyisious wrote: »

Regretfully, if you read what Absolom actually wrote, you will see that he stated the rape legislation prevented women from being made pregnant. Quote; Of course, a woman who refuses to be made pregnant actually has the protection of rape legislation: unquote.

If you read what you'quoted' regretfully, I have to point out that I didn't say it prevented them from being made pregnant. I said 'a woman who refuses to be made pregnant actually has the protection of rape legislation'.

aloyisious wrote: »

That legislation can only apply and be used AFTER the rape, so it does NOT prevent pregnancy. It's about as useful as a holed condom in reference to preventing a rape or pregnancy.

So, just like all other criminal legislation, then? And like other criminal legislation, the fact that the act is illegal and carries a penalty, at least in theory, is supposed to deter the act. Whether or not it does is a much wider discussion than the abortion one..

aloyisious wrote: »

It has no relevance to the prevention of pregnancy, so why Absolom brought it into this debate is curious. IMO, it's distracting from the debate on abortion. I already wrote somewhere above about posters trying to distract others from the debate on abortion.

It does however, how some relevance to the prevention of rape, an issue you yourself have joined to the subject. Hence my comment 'that obviates a large part of that particular aspect of your argument'. That particular part, obviously, being the rape part.

As for relevance, well it's odd that rape suddenly is distracting from the debate on abortion, yet you seem to think introducing Manifest Destiny and Slavery isn't. Odd indeed....

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People should stick to arguing reality as it actually is, as opposed to their own individual perception of reality which actually has no grounding in reality. We don't get to ignore laws we don't like. Otherwise the laws are never going to change, and people will think from reading some posts that they are entitled to do things which in reality, they aren't.

Actually I was wondering how I could get around to asking you about perceived rights and the law. You agree with me that we must obey our laws as it is, and not do acts or deeds outside it merely because we might perceive rights are being ignored. I would like both of you to reply.

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

Actually I was wondering how I could get around to asking you about perceived rights and the law. You agree with me that we must obey our laws as it is, and not do acts or deeds outside it merely because we might perceive rights are being ignored. I would like both of you to reply.

Reply to what though aloysius? We're both agreed that people have no right to act outside the law even when they perceive they have a right to do so. That's when laws break down and anarchy ensues because people are acting on their perceived rights in contravention of others actual rights.

The perfect example is a woman who perceives she has the right to induce a miscarriage in this country with the consequence of ending the life of the unborn. Campaign for a change in the law rather than ignore it because you think it doesn't apply to you. The consequences of thinking the law doesn't apply to you can incur either civil or criminal penalties.

If someone is willing to take that risk, they should at the very least be aware of the possible consequences.

aloyisious

OK, those who are pro-abortion rights here are campaigning for a change in the law here as they perceive it to be unjust, and those opposed to abortion here are campaigning to stop any change in law here as they perceive it to lead to injustice for the unborn. I reckon we both accept that to be the fact here.

Now getting back solely to rights (no matter which kind of rights), perceived rights and Irish law, we jointly agree that only existing rights in law are applicable to us as irish Citizens. I'm taking this tack on all the existing rights we have in law.

We are in 2016, one hundred years after a rebellion which led to an Irish Govt, an Irish Republic and Irish Laws which govern how we act towards each other. All our laws would not exist if some people had not perceived that the laws which governed us here in Ireland, British laws, were not legitimate. All the rights we have now in our country under our laws are down to those who broke the law that existed here in 1916. They ignored that law and were aware of the possible consequences. What say you about our existing laws & rights, given they exist due to unlawful acts in 1916?

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

OK, those who are pro-abortion rights here are campaigning for a change in the law here as they perceive it to be unjust, and those opposed to abortion here are campaigning to stop any change in law here as they perceive it to lead to injustice for the unborn. I reckon we both accept that to be the fact here.

Now getting back solely to rights (no matter which kind of rights), perceived rights and Irish law, we jointly agree that only existing rights in law are applicable to us as irish Citizens. I'm taking this tack on all the existing rights we have in law.

We are in 2016, one hundred years after a rebellion which led to an Irish Govt, an Irish Republic and Irish Laws which govern how we act towards each other. All our laws would not exist if some people had not perceived that the laws which governed us here in Ireland, British laws, were not legitimate. All the rights we have now in our country under our laws are down to those who broke the law that existed here in 1916. They ignored that law and were aware of the possible consequences. What say you about our existing laws & rights, given they exist due to unlawful acts in 1916?

I would point out that by a cruel twist of irony, the UK have some of the most liberal laws on abortion in the world, and Ireland have the most restrictive, due in no small part to the actions of a small group of men who figured they had a perceived right to ignore the laws as though the laws that applied to everyone didn't apply to them.

I don't thank them for it, if that's what you're asking. That which can be achieved through peaceful means, should always be achieved through peaceful means, even if it takes longer, it lasts longer. Every war that's ever been fought has caused more misery, death and destruction of human life, than it has ever set anyone free.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Actually I was wondering how I could get around to asking you about perceived rights and the law. You agree with me that we must obey our laws as it is, and not do acts or deeds outside it merely because we might perceive rights are being ignored. I would like both of you to reply.

With One Eyed Jack, I'd agree it's impossible to tell what you'd like us (presuming it's us two?) to reply to.

aloyisious wrote: »

OK, those who are pro-abortion rights here are campaigning for a change in the law here as they perceive it to be unjust, and those opposed to abortion here are campaigning to stop any change in law here as they perceive it to lead to injustice for the unborn. I reckon we both accept that to be the fact here.

I'd disagree I'm afraid; I oppose (most) abortions because they cause the death of a person who has done nothing to deserve being killed for. To simply say it leads to injustice for the unborn would be incorrect. In my opinion (justice being a moral concept and therefore subjective) the act of killing itself is unjust if it is not merited by the acts (and/or motivation) of the person killed.

aloyisious wrote: »

Now getting back solely to rights (no matter which kind of rights), perceived rights and Irish law, we jointly agree that only existing rights in law are applicable to us as irish Citizens. I'm taking this tack on all the existing rights we have in law.

Well 'no matter which kind of rights' kind of obviates the rest of your sentance; the only existing rights in law that are applicable to us as Irish citizens (or residents) are civil rights.

aloyisious wrote: »

We are in 2016, one hundred years after a rebellion which led to an Irish Govt, an Irish Republic and Irish Laws which govern how we act towards each other. All our laws would not exist if some people had not perceived that the laws which governed us here in Ireland, British laws, were not legitimate. All the rights we have now in our country under our laws are down to those who broke the law that existed here in 1916. They ignored that law and were aware of the possible consequences. What say you about our existing laws & rights, given they exist due to unlawful acts in 1916?

I don't think that any part of that is actually true though? It wasn't the laws that governed us that were percieved to not be legitimate, that's apparent from the amount of British laws that were kept after independence. It was the government itself that was considered to be illegitimate; many of the rights we enjoy now already existed under British rule, and were simply transposed into the new Irish system. I'm not sure why you think it makes a difference to existing rights and laws that the rebels who preceded the founding of the State acted illegally? Plenty of legitimate States with legitimate laws that confer legitimate rights have been founded by wars, you don't really need examples, do you? And is the discussion of the founding of nations not distracting from the debate on abortion?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

With One Eyed Jack, I'd agree it's impossible to tell what you'd like us (presuming it's us two?) to reply to.
I'd disagree I'm afraid; I oppose (most) abortions because they cause the death of a person who has done nothing to deserve being killed for. To simply say it leads to injustice for the unborn would be incorrect. In my opinion (justice being a moral concept and therefore subjective) the act of killing itself is unjust if it is not merited by the acts (and/or motivation) of the person killed

My question was about the matter of perception, how about different people perceive things differently, even though what was being looked at by the people was exactly the same thing.

Re your above, my response is probably going to annoy you. In the US there are some people who perceived that it was legitimate to murder doctors and staff at abortion clinics who performed abortions because they believed it was a morally just act to do so (saving babies). I reckon (perceive) that you would not agree with the acts of those who murdered the doctors there because I can't imagine you think the act of murdering doctors and staff was just due to their acts at the clinics, whatever about justice being a moral concept and therefore subjective.

I'm using the words murder and murderers because the abortions were legal in the states, where-as the acts against the doctors and staff were illegal under state law and seen as acts of murder.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

My question was about the matter of perception, how about different people perceive things differently, even though what was being looked at by the people was exactly the same thing.

Would you mind actually asking the question though?

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your above, my response is probably going to annoy you. In the US there are some people who perceived that it was legitimate to murder doctors and staff at abortion clinics who performed abortions because they believed it was a morally just act to do so (saving babies). I reckon (perceive) that you would not agree with the acts of those who murdered the doctors there because I can't imagine you think the act of murdering doctors and staff was just due to their acts at the clinics, whatever about justice being a moral concept and therefore subjective.

So, different people have different views on what is moral and just? With you so far.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm using the words murder and murderers because the abortions were legal in the states, where-as the acts against the doctors and staff were illegal under state law and seen as acts of murder.

So long as those you're referring to were convicted of murder, I think it's not unreasonable to refer to them as murderers, sure.

I don't know why you think what you're saying would annoy me, but I don't know why you think it's a response to what I said either; it doesn't seem to relate to your notion that abortion should be opposed because it leads to injustice for the unborn or my notion that abortion should no more be permitted than any other unmerited act of killing. So.... well done, good talk?

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would point out that by a cruel twist of irony, the UK have some of the most liberal laws on abortion in the world, and Ireland have the most restrictive, due in no small part to the actions of a small group of men who figured they had a perceived right to ignore the laws as though the laws that applied to everyone didn't apply to them.

I don't thank them for it, if that's what you're asking. That which can be achieved through peaceful means, should always be achieved through peaceful means, even if it takes longer, it lasts longer. Every war that's ever been fought has caused more misery, death and destruction of human life, than it has ever set anyone free.

Naw. I was just wondering if you would reject the rights existing here and not see them as a means to extend the existing list of them further. I don't reckon you would be a person who'd think that that could never be, given how you think/thought on the equal civil marriage referendum issue.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Would you mind actually asking the question though?
So, different people have different views on what is moral and just? With you so far.So long as those you're referring to were convicted of murder, I think it's not unreasonable to refer to them as murderers, sure.

I don't know why you think what you're saying would annoy me, but I don't know why you think it's a response to what I said either; it doesn't seem to relate to your notion that abortion should be opposed because it leads to injustice for the unborn or my notion that abortion should no more be permitted than any other unmerited act of killing. So.... well done, good talk?

i regret that you think I have a notion that abortion should be opposed. I can't imagine where you got that notion from. The murders were committed because the murderers had subjective views on justice (taking the lives of the doctors and staff at abortion clinics prevented the performance of abortions and therefore saved babies).

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

i regret that you think I have a notion that abortion should be opposed. I can't imagine where you got that notion from.

You said;

aloyisious wrote: »

those opposed to abortion here are campaigning to stop any change in law here as they perceive it to lead to injustice for the unborn. I reckon we both accept that to be the fact here.

Nobody else put forward the notion, it came entirely from you, did it not?

aloyisious wrote: »

The murders were committed because the murderers had subjective views on justice (taking the lives of the doctors and staff at abortion clinics prevented the performance of abortions and therefore saved babies).

I'm not sure I'd want to comment on someone else's motivation without them presenting it for themselves, but leaving that aside, have you decided how you think it's relevant to what I said? It's ok to just say it, in fact it helps the discussion move forward.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

You said; Nobody else put forward the notion, it came entirely from you, did it not?

To Absolom.

I regret your failure to use the entire sentence i wrote to One eyed jack, as follows ("OK, those who are pro-abortion rights here are campaigning for a change in the law here as they perceive it to be unjust, and those opposed to abortion here are campaigning to stop any change in law here as they perceive it to lead to injustice for the unborn. I reckon we both accept that to be the fact here") which you were able to use entirely in your other post 1794 above, and your deliberate choice to use only the latter part of my sentence (from "and those" onwards) to write and state a strange opinion that I am opposed to abortion.

I am not surprised by your action in choosing to deliberately take what I wrote out of context.

Fortunately for me, it confirms my opinion about the validity-level of your postings and reinforces my earlier decision NOT to converse with you. IMO, your postings are solely intent on exciting others into hasty responses and fracture this abortion debate.

I say to you, adieu,
aloyisious.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

To Absolom. I regret your failure to use the entire sentence i wrote to One eyed jack, as follows ("OK, those who are pro-abortion rights here are campaigning for a change in the law here as they perceive it to be unjust, and those opposed to abortion here are campaigning to stop any change in law here as they perceive it to lead to injustice for the unborn. I reckon we both accept that to be the fact here") which you were able to use entirely in your other post 1794 above, and your deliberate choice to use only the latter part of my sentence (from "and those" onwards) to write and state a strange opinion that I am opposed to abortion.

I don't know why you'd regret it, but we both can see quite clearly what you (and I) said. I think it's pretty debatable that 'OK, those who are pro-abortion rights here are campaigning for a change in the law here as they perceive it to be unjust, and ' adds much in the way of context to the quote, but maybe you felt there was some nuance that didn't come across? Regardless, I never said that you are opposed to abortion, or that it's my opinion that you're opposed to abortion. I can't even see why you'd imagine I'd want to.

aloyisious wrote: »

I am not surprised by your action in choosing to deliberately take what I wrote out of context.

I think it's fair to say whether or not you consider what you wrote in any context, it is still what you wrote. I'd be interested to see how exactly you think it's out of context, but I suspect you won't be saying?

aloyisious wrote: »

Fortunately for me, it confirms my opinion about the validity-level of your postings and reinforces my earlier decision NOT to converse with you. IMO, your postings are solely intent on exciting others into hasty responses and fracture this abortion debate.

I have to say I think your decision on whether or not to converse with someone seems more to be based on how much you can think you can get away with fudging your points sufficiently to feel like you're getting the better of a discussion; it's when you find yourself at a loss to rebut that you prefer to look like you're bowing out on principle rather than having nowhere to go. I guess we both have opinions about the validity-level of each others posts, eh? Still, if I excited you into hastily responding, I apologise. Personally, I can't say I think nine hours later (or even twelve minutes) is an indecently hasty post but I'll admit that may be a subjective view, and if you felt the pressure to perform compromised your ability to articulate, that is indeed regrettable. Finally whilst I can't quite grasp how discussing rape legislation fractures the abortion debate, but seeking views on manifest destiny, slavery, and the founding of nations doesn't, I'll admit, again, that may be my subjective view...