Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 6970
Ismisejack wrote: »Pro-choice( pro-abortion) contingent here whole argument based on calling an unborn child a fetus, so as to dehumanize it and try make the murder sound less wrong cruel barbaric . Well I’ve yet to meet a woman expecting a fetus, it’s always a baby their expecting as that what it is, an unborn child. Don’t be fooled be the pro choice side, any abortion, no matter the circumstances behind it, kills an unborn child and Denys it it’s one life it will ever have
The bit in bold is precisely the point. It's a baby they're EXPECTING. When the pregnancy is wanted quite often tags are put on it inline with the emotional attachment. It doesn't make what is growing a baby yet though.
It's not meant to dehumanize, it's fact. Perhaps look at the growth of the fetus up to 12 weeks and you'll see it yourself the stages of development.0 -
Ismisejack wrote: »Pro-choice( pro-abortion) contingent here whole argument based on calling an unborn child a fetus, so as to dehumanize it and try make the murder sound less wrong cruel barbaric . Well I’ve yet to meet a woman expecting a fetus, it’s always a baby their expecting as that what it is, an unborn child. Don’t be fooled be the pro choice side, any abortion, no matter the circumstances behind it, kills an unborn child and Denys it it’s one life it will ever have
They're hardly expecting puppies now are they ?
Oh no :
the dictionaries are in on the pro-choice conspiracy too
Definition of fetus
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth — compare : embryo
Origin and Etymology of fetus:
Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful0 -
Ismisejack wrote: »Pro-choice( pro-abortion) contingent here whole argument based on calling an unborn child a fetus, so as to dehumanize it and try make the murder sound less wrong cruel barbaric . Well I’ve yet to meet a woman expecting a fetus, it’s always a baby their expecting as that what it is, an unborn child. Don’t be fooled be the pro choice side, any abortion, no matter the circumstances behind it, kills an unborn child and Denys it it’s one life it will ever have
Why don't you respond to at least ONE of the previous posts directed at you? Answer some questions, have an actual debate.
I don't refer to the unborn child as a foetus, although that's what it is, I usually call it a "baby" or sometimes an "unborn child" because I don't care about "sounding barbaric", I care more about the barbaric treatment of our women.0 -
2. Fathers' rights
This is one branch where I do not foresee having my mind changed due to the current political climate. Back in my heady days as a law student I was infuriated to read The State (Nicolaou) v An Bord Uchtála - where the presiding judge felt it necessary to state "...it is rare for a natural father to take any interest in his (illegitimate) offspring..."
I believe society has changed enough that we now recognise the role that fathers (whether married or unmarried) should/need/want to take in the raising of a child.
Yet the abortion debate has been couched in the language of a woman's choice, with no regards to the feelings or wishes of the father, the person who has contributed 50% of the chromosomes of the foetus growing inside of the mother.
I cannot see the potential that legislators will consider fathers' rights to their unborn child in any future Irish legislation. As a prospective father, I cannot vote for the creation of a legal situation whereby I, as a father, am helpless in law to prevent my child from being aborted against my wishes.
This I understand is a matter of perspective - if you feel that a foetus is part of the bodily integrity of the woman and hence solely within the remit of her choice to do with as she pleases then you will have no issue with the above. But, I would ask that you consider an alternative perspective, that the foetus is not solely that of the woman's body - but is developing within, and independent to the bodily integrity of the woman herself. If you were to take this perspective, would it then be abhorrent to you that only one person has a say in deciding whether this pregnancy is continued or not?
Another example - under current law, a prospective mother can avail of an abortion where the threat of suicide poses a threat to the life of the mother (and hence also the foetus). But a prospective father, even where a threat of suicide exists, cannot, by law, ensure that a pregnancy is continued. Our society does not currently value the role of fathers during pregnancy as much as mothers, this I believe is a mistake, and future, more enlightened people will come around to this view also. I do however understand that the majority of Irish legislators do not feel this way and hence - for the protection my prospective fathers' rights (which would not be protected if the current proposed abortion legislation is passed) I cannot vote for the repeal of the 8th Amendment.
If you've read to the end of this very long comment I commend you - hopefully it puts forward a rational and wholly non-religious explanation of why someone would choose to retain the 8th Amendment. If you have any comments or views on the above I would be glad to hear from you - the benefits of non-dogmatic views is that they can be changed through reasoned argument - I hope this applies to both sets of voters in the upcoming referendum.
Great post, a lot of thought put into it and not full of the usual nonsense.
Just in relation to your point on fathers, the mother has final say and in fact more say because of biology, the woman carries the baby, the man doesn't, until they find a way to transplant a baby into a man, there's not much that can be done.
That's just the way it is. The woman, who is actually pregnant, should of course have the final say on whether she wants to remain pregnant, otherwise she is basically just an incubator and that is an inhumane way to treat our women.
Denying women the right to choose what is right for them because of their biological makeup, isn't fair. No woman chose to be born as a woman, no man chose to be born as a man, this is just the way the sexes are. Being a woman shouldn't mean we are denied bodily autonomy. What bodily autonomy is a man denied? None, as far as I am aware.0 -
Ismisejack wrote: »Pro-choice( pro-abortion) contingent here whole argument based on calling an unborn child a fetus, so as to dehumanize it and try make the murder sound less wrong cruel barbaric . Well I’ve yet to meet a woman expecting a fetus, it’s always a baby their expecting as that what it is, an unborn child. Don’t be fooled be the pro choice side, any abortion, no matter the circumstances behind it, kills an unborn child and Denys it it’s one life it will ever have
More over the top emotive bullsh it from youth defence0 -
Advertisement
-
Sierra Eire wrote: »That's probably why a very infamous MALE globalist called GEORGE SOROS is funding the pro-abortion campaign. And he's also funding "refugee" programs.
There is a nefarious agenda behind this. I'm not saying you're in on it or support it, but there is an agenda to destroy the Irish people.
Laughed myself to sleep last night after reading this.
Hilarious, sad but hilarious!0 -
Ismisejack wrote: »Pro-choice( pro-abortion) contingent here whole argument based on calling an unborn child a fetus, so as to dehumanize it and try make the murder sound less wrong cruel barbaric . Well I’ve yet to meet a woman expecting a fetus, it’s always a baby their expecting as that what it is, an unborn child. Don’t be fooled be the pro choice side, any abortion, no matter the circumstances behind it, kills an unborn child and Denys it it’s one life it will ever have
Can you respond to the previous posts and address them accordingly?
This whole shtick is getting a bit boring now. It's the same "come in, leave comment, ignore rebuttals, run away" over and over again.
Try something new, excite us.0 -
In the last thread I queried if there were any secular groups against abortion in Ireland and apparently there were none.
As a life long agnostic I feel strongly enough on the issue that I've set up one myself:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/232970957272673/
Here is my reasoning (prepare for a long read!):
As someone who is a life-long agnostic I had a search and couldn't find many Irish non-religious groups which are anti-abortion so I felt the need (as this is a matter I care enough about) to create one myself.
It is not a decision I came to lightly and I believe I have tried my best to understand the opposing view but as it is, I cannot support the expansion of abortion beyond what is currently permissible under our Constitution. To people who know me as a rational actor I would ask that they take the time to consider my reasoning below and comment on how they feel I may be correct or mistaken in my views.
My stance on maintaining the status quo (abortions allowed in the case of risk to the life of the mother, including through suicide i.e. the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013) stems from 2 primary reasons:
1. Arbitrariness to the affording of human rights to a foetus/baby.
This is the difficulty, for me, in drawing a line between unborn foetuses and human life - I understand that in the UK abortions can be carried out up to 24 weeks, in China apparently it's up to 10-12 weeks. In Ireland, the current legislative proposal (which could be tightened or loosened via future legislation if the 8th Amendment is repealed) is for abortions on demand up to 12 weeks.
How do we distinguish between a protected foetus and an unprotected one? 12 weeks and 1 second means legal protection from abortion (on demand) and 11 weeks 6 days 23 hours 59 mins 59 secs does not grant such legal protection? As a lawyer, I understand we attach arbitrary time limits and constraints on certain matters - drinking, driving, marriage etc. But the right to life seems to me to be something that arbitrary time limits should not apply to. No one is likely to die if I can't drive until I am 17 but here the question can be a matter of life and death or termination (if people feel I am using emotive language I apologise).
Of course a zygote on one extreme end of the spectrum does not seem to be instinctively "human" - we shed billions of cells naturally everyday. But how do we draw the line (never mind how do politicians decide how a line should be drawn)? I have thought for quite a while on this matter and still cannot get over the arbitrary life definition hurdle, a friend who intends to vote yes to repeal views it as a medical matter - i.e. survival outside womb and thus it is an arbitrary time line that shifts continuously as medical advancements continue. In their world one day abortions won't be possible when a zygote can be raised to "full" human in a medical facility, outside of the womb. At that point would people all agree that zygotes can be accorded the right to life?
As someone who vehemently opposes the death penalty (state sanctioned killing), but is pro-euthanasia (personal choice) I feel like I've taken a consistent position on this subject. However this is a view where I foresee I could have my opinion changed.
2. Fathers' rights
This is one branch where I do not foresee having my mind changed due to the current political climate. Back in my heady days as a law student I was infuriated to read The State (Nicolaou) v An Bord Uchtála - where the presiding judge felt it necessary to state "...it is rare for a natural father to take any interest in his (illegitimate) offspring..."
I believe society has changed enough that we now recognise the role that fathers (whether married or unmarried) should/need/want to take in the raising of a child.
Yet the abortion debate has been couched in the language of a woman's choice, with no regards to the feelings or wishes of the father, the person who has contributed 50% of the chromosomes of the foetus growing inside of the mother.
I cannot see the potential that legislators will consider fathers' rights to their unborn child in any future Irish legislation. As a prospective father, I cannot vote for the creation of a legal situation whereby I, as a father, am helpless in law to prevent my child from being aborted against my wishes.
This I understand is a matter of perspective - if you feel that a foetus is part of the bodily integrity of the woman and hence solely within the remit of her choice to do with as she pleases then you will have no issue with the above. But, I would ask that you consider an alternative perspective, that the foetus is not solely that of the woman's body - but is developing within, and independent to the bodily integrity of the woman herself. If you were to take this perspective, would it then be abhorrent to you that only one person has a say in deciding whether this pregnancy is continued or not?
Another example - under current law, a prospective mother can avail of an abortion where the threat of suicide poses a threat to the life of the mother (and hence also the foetus). But a prospective father, even where a threat of suicide exists, cannot, by law, ensure that a pregnancy is continued. Our society does not currently value the role of fathers during pregnancy as much as mothers, this I believe is a mistake, and future, more enlightened people will come around to this view also. I do however understand that the majority of Irish legislators do not feel this way and hence - for the protection my prospective fathers' rights (which would not be protected if the current proposed abortion legislation is passed) I cannot vote for the repeal of the 8th Amendment.
If you've read to the end of this very long comment I commend you - hopefully it puts forward a rational and wholly non-religious explanation of why someone would choose to retain the 8th Amendment. If you have any comments or views on the above I would be glad to hear from you - the benefits of non-dogmatic views is that they can be changed through reasoned argument - I hope this applies to both sets of voters in the upcoming referendum.
I oppose the death penalty also, I support euthanasia. while I understand your point that you do not know when Life begins exactly, I don't believe that is an issue. Don't misunderstand me, I don't mean to belittle 'life', I mean that unless a fetus can live on its own outside of a womb, then whether or not there is 'life' is not the most important issue.
many things are 'alive' or 'living', but it doesn't mean we afford them rights of their own.
its emotions that cause us to believe that a fetus has a right to life, IMO.
The worst violation of human rights is not killing someone, as killing can be justified by law.
the issue for me, is that as a woman, I can be treated as a second class citizen because i may be pregnant. I find it insulting that a 6 or 7 week old fetus can impact on my medical care. I believe that I know whats best for me medically and I should be allowed to make my own, informed decisions. Currently the 8th amendment does not allow this.
also, on your fathers rights point, I think everyone would agree with you. It is not fair that any father who wants & is ready to have & care for a child, can have their wishes ignored. But its not fair because of nature.
A woman carries the offspring. As someone mentioned already, until the day that men can carry children themselves or an artificial womb is invented that neither parent needs to physically carry the child, there is nothing that can be done about this.
In the other thread a pro-life poster asked a question, if a pregnant woman could remove the fetus & allow it to grow in an incubator until birth, then adoption or the father could take the child, would they do it?
The majority of people on this thread, myself included agreed.
It is neccessary to accept the fact that woman get pregnant, men cannot. It is not fair for men, but that's the way it is.
For a man to have the final say, it would mean forcing a woman to remain pregnant. barbaric, inhuman and not acceptable to any reasonable person.0 -
Ismisejack wrote: »Pro-choice( pro-abortion) contingent here whole argument based on calling an unborn child a fetus, so as to dehumanize it and try make the murder sound less wrong cruel barbaric . Well I’ve yet to meet a woman expecting a fetus, it’s always a baby their expecting as that what it is, an unborn child. Don’t be fooled be the pro choice side, any abortion, no matter the circumstances behind it, kills an unborn child and Denys it it’s one life it will ever have
Do you believe a fertilised egg has equal rights to a born human? And if not at what point in its development does it gain these rights?0 -
1. Arbitrariness to the affording of human rights to a foetus/baby.
This is the difficulty, for me, in drawing a line between unborn foetuses and human life
Sure, and we all know that the two lines we have today, birth and implantation, are not reflective of anything in particular in science.
Birth has, however, a very, very long legal history. "Implantation" is frankly a joke line, a result of the botched wording of the 8th and reflective of absolutely nothing in reality.
You and I both know that either of us would save 1 toddler from a fire ahead of 1000 frozen embryos. They are not equivalent. If you would not prioritise your wife's health above the life of an 8 week fetus, well, I suggest you don't tell her or she may be your ex-wife.2. Fathers' rights
Nope.0 -
Advertisement
-
The problem with this whole issue Is that it’s very easy for the pro-life side to sway the debate. They just say oh but the lovely baby and ignore the many many grey areas that result in abortion being necessary for a woman. It needs to be legislated for so that women’s privacy can be respected and they can make the best medical decision for them. I personally don’t agree with militant views of it being a foetus - I do think if pregnant its a baby all going well however I can think of many scenarios where it is necessary although not nice to have an abortion and I believe my life is worth more to myself and to the people who love me then a baby they’ve never met. I don’t think that the mother and baby have equal rights. It’s certain that some women will abuse an abortion regime by treating it as a contraception but that is no reason not to allow it for the majority who don’t abuse the system.0
-
Ismisejack wrote: »Pro-choice( pro-abortion) contingent here whole argument based on calling an unborn child a fetus, so as to dehumanize it and try make the murder sound less wrong cruel barbaric . Well I’ve yet to meet a woman expecting a fetus, it’s always a baby their expecting as that what it is, an unborn child. Don’t be fooled be the pro choice side, any abortion, no matter the circumstances behind it, kills an unborn child and Denys it it’s one life it will ever have
I think you posted before how you are convinced that had abortion been available in Ireland when your mother was pregnant with you, you might not be here right now. I think you see abortion as a threat to your own existence, and you are lashing out angrily at anyone who might want to "snuff out" your life as you see it.
This is not a rational perspective. What if your mother had miscarried? You wouldn't be here either. Does miscarriage scare you too? I guess not - after all, it didn't happen to you. But it might have. Abortion is the same, if you are here to think about it, then it never happened. If it had happened, you wouldn't be able to worry about it.
And what about the health of pregnant women today - is that always to be made secondary to your fears of what might have happened to you many years ago?0 -
I would ask that they take the time to consider my reasoning below and comment on how they feel I may be correct or mistaken in my views.
Allow me to do the best I can then. I see a few issues in your thinking where I think you might benefit from some focused introspection. Let me take them in sequence...Arbitrariness to the affording of human rights to a foetus/baby.
Here I think is the first issue. Conflating the implementation of a moral good with the actual moral good itself. And somehow indicting the latter with the former.
Firstly it should be noted that we should be focused on what we believe is the right thing to do. The relatively arbitrary nature of how we might implement and/or enforce that right thing to do is a separate issue that you for some reason are bringing together.
The second thing to notice, as you pointed out yourself, is that this is not uncommon. For example think how ridiculous you would find the suggestion that we should have no interest in maintaining notions like "statutory rape" or "pedophilia" due to the arbitrary nature of affording the right to consent to sex to a teenager/child.
Just like you complain there is no difference between a fetus at 1 second short of 12 weeks compared to 1 second after 12 weeks..... there is equally no difference between a teenager a few days before the age of sexual consent and a few days after wards. Similarly with our alcohol laws I know 12 year olds who are ready to deal maturely with alcohol. I know 40 year olds who should never be let, and should never HAVE been let, near the stuff.
The implementation of our moral goods and evils at the level of law and society is BY NECESSITY arbitrary. But generally we do not let that stop us doing what is generally the right thing. So it is NO EXCUSE at all for being anti-choice with regards to abortion up to a specific time frame (like 12 weeks). And it seems your basis for exempting THIS topic from THOSE topics is more couched in mere assertion than rational and argued reasoning.
The third thing to notice is that 12 weeks is not all that arbitrary at all. It is MORE than a safety net for something like sentience, the faculty of which we do not scientifically suspect comes on line anywhere before 22/24 weeks and possibly significantly later. But on top of that it matches the reality of abortion too. Because regardless of whether people are in a country with abortion to 12 weeks, 24 weeks, or no theoretical limit like in Canada..... what we consistently see is choice based abortions are almost entirely (figures upward of 92%) done in or before week 12. So far from being an arbitrary limit.... 12 weeks is a limit that actually reflects the reality of what the general populace requires from an abortion service.
So in summary I do not see it as arbitrary at all on one hand, and on the other hand any arbitrary nature of it is not at all relevant to what we do in law and society, or why. Rather what I fear/suspect is that the arbitrary nature of a law one does not like..... while ignoring it in laws one does like or has no issue with...... is indicative of nothing more than a bias. A decision of what is "right" first, and a retrospective construction of a (non) argument to suit the conclusion retrospectively. A move that undermines your earlier self assessment to be a rational actor on the discussion because alas choosing a conclusion first, and the arguments second in the light of that conclusion, is the opposite of a rational based approach.Of course a zygote on one extreme end of the spectrum does not seem to be instinctively "human" - we shed billions of cells naturally everyday. But how do we draw the line (never mind how do politicians decide how a line should be drawn)? I have thought for quite a while on this matter and still cannot get over the arbitrary life definition hurdle, a friend who intends to vote yes to repeal views it as a medical matter - i.e. survival outside womb and thus it is an arbitrary time line that shifts continuously as medical advancements continue.
Here we have some common ground of agreement which is useful in any discussion. We agree that viability outside the womb is technology based and so an arbitrary measure AND a moving target. I see little reason to expect the womb will even be required in the future. We are not too many technology steps away from being able to conceive, nurture and grow zygotes in an entirely artificial environment.
But where we diverge is in how difficult we each think it is to find an alternative approach to the definition of the boundaries here. I think all that is required is some deep introspection on the nature or rights and morality. One has to start by asking oneself what rights and morality actually are. A little deeper than a mere cursory look at the nearest dictionary.
What we find is that rights and morality are in the business of mediating the actions and well being of conscious and sentient creatures. Even when speaking of animal rights for example, we rarely mean that the animals themselves have rights...... (otherwise we would be going around protecting the right to life of animals in the face of the actions of other animals, after all what right does the crocodile have to lash out at a large mammal and consume it)....... so much as we are discussing what rights WE as rational and sentience agents have with regards those animals.
If therefore rights and morality are in the business of mediating the actions and well being of conscious and sentient creatures, then is it a leap to suggest that we mediate those rights FOR, apply them TO conscious and sentient entities in proportion to their species capacities in that regard? And if so if any entity is not sentient, never has been sentient, and is a significant and identifiable period of time away from ever being sentient......... that on what rational or philosophical basis are we affording that entity rights or moral and ethical concern?
Generally every user I have asked this of has literally run away from the conversation. Simply retreated. There is one single exception and that was a user who not only gave no basis for affording such an entity rights.... but also invented a whole new right for it. The right to BECOME sentient. When challenged on that assertion however, including a few thought experiments to test it, they resorted to the general MO and literally ran away from the conversation. They could neither back of the existence of such a right OR the assignment of rights to entities that do not warrant it. So they ran.
The fetuses being aborted (the significant vast majority by week 12 and the near totality by week 16) are not sentient. Never have been. The lack the faculty entirely and completely, but also lack many of it's pre-requisites too. A tape worm, which we happily rip out of the body of men and women alike and destroy could therefore be argued rationally to have more basis for our moral and ethical concerns than a fetus at 12 weeks. There simply is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to me at this time to provide ANY basis for affording such a fetus moral and ethical concern.
And that is BEFORE we point out that abortion is a context where we are not just discussing our moral and ethical concern for the fetus in isolation (for which I feel we should have none) but we are speaking of it RELATIVE to the rights and moral concerns of an actual sentient agent. The pregnant woman. Which renders the already non-existent rights and concerns for the fetus even less relevant that irrelevant.
Assigning rights and moral concern to an entity is one thing, but doing so at the expense of the rights, choices, well being and concerns of another sentient agent places the onus of evidence, and justification, very strongly in the anti abortion camp.Yet the abortion debate has been couched in the language of a woman's choice, with no regards to the feelings or wishes of the father, the person who has contributed 50% of the chromosomes of the foetus growing inside of the mother.
A few problems I see here.
The first. If you plant a seed on my land, you get no moral OR legal say in my choice to dig up the sprouting result to destroy it. Or at least there is no reason why you should..... as not being a layer myself I do not know if there IS some weird law on the books about this. But to my limited knowledge it does not matter how many documents you have saying you owned the original seed. You should get no say in it once it is planted on my land. And I see no reason why a similar thought process should not be applied to abortion.
Further secondly I fear that a line like "contributed 50% of the chromosomes" is designed to build a false equivalence between the father and the mother in this context. In the greater scheme of the ENTIRE process of human reproduction the input of the male is far from 50% and the contribution of chromosomes is but the tiniest fraction of the time, effort, resources and relevance in that regard. Speaking of 50% in this manner is a linguistic propaganda move to build more equivalence than is warranted.
Third I think you overstate the relevance of the contribution of chromosomes in the first place. The zygote at conception is a relatively unique string of DNA when considered in totality. But the reality is that the vast majority of it's DNA and that of the parents is far from unique. Most of the genetics you have as an individual are constant across the species. The genetic variance between individuals in a species is very small. We share most of the same genes as each other. Hell there are strands of our sequence we share with other species. Flora AND fauna.
So you, as an individual parent, are contributing a lot less to the mix than you seem to know. And why would you? Lawyers are not required to be biologists. "On average, in DNA sequence, each human is 99.9% similar to any other human.". And it is hard to take seriously the emotional concerns about the contribution of genetic material when it seems a large majority of males, a large majority of the time, are happy to contribute their genetic material to a kleenex on a near daily basis.
So it does not make much sense scientifically OR philosophically to mediate our concerns for the father based on contribution of genetics. You would be on stronger ground to take the approach of mediating those concerns based on the moral and ethical concerns for the well-being of the father as an individual. But even then it would be limited by comparisons to the well-being of the woman who is more invested biologically and arguably mentally in the process by far than that of the mans concerns. And, aside from merely declaring that your view is more enlightened, I am not seeing any arguments from you yet actually supporting that position. Which, for me, is what the meaning of "enlightened" would require as a minimum.hopefully it puts forward a rational and wholly non-religious explanation of why someone would choose to retain the 8th Amendment
Well not really.
Firstly at most your post was a description of why you are against abortion. However the removal of the 8th has MANY more concerns than merely abortion. The majority of concerns relate to restrictions it puts on, and issues it causes for, medical issues around pregnancy as a whole. Even for women who do not want an abortion. So it seems you have bypassed most of the actual concerns people have with the 8th itself and focused entirely on the (relevant, but secondary) concerns you have with the tangential topic of abortion by choice.
Secondly however your concerns to not appear to be that rational at all. Your concerns about the arbitrary nature of abortions laws are emotionally based rather than rational, and are a self-asserting exception to the general approach we have to (arbitrary or not) boundaries we have (including temporal ones) laws as a whole. It is only an exception because subjectively TO YOU it is more emotive and relevant. Nothing rational about the exception, it is entirely subjective and emotional.
And finally your inherently unjustifiable concerns regarding genetic contributions are also emotional at best and not rational either. And result in an equally unjustified by argument or reason conclusion that the rights, choices and moral well being of a pregnant woman should continue to be curtailed in deference to the emotional investment some men MIGHT have (but many even most do not at all have) in an entirely non-sentient only some what differentiated blob of biological matter that shares an absolute minute genetic distinction with that person. It does not make sense to overly legislate to protect the emotional investment of emotional creatures in something that there is no warrant for being emotionally invested in. You might be seriously and even entirely emotionally invested in..... say...... a tree or a car..... but that does not mean I can not chop down the tree, or have the car turned into a cube.
You are right it provides an explanation for your position. No argument from me there. And you are right it is a non-religious one too which for me is a welcome change as I am hammered with religious concerns on this issue from people with unsubstantiated and nonsense ideas about the nature of our universe. But I question, for all the reasons detailed above, the rational and not purely emotional basis for any of it. Especially when you claim to be against the arbitrary nature of some laws, but what is more arbitrary than the emotional investment of humans???? You contradict your own self in this regard and become entirely arbitrary about when things being arbitrary are actually a concern for you.0 -
I commend you on your example of reasonable discussion in what it frequently an unreasonable debate. I can understand your views on father's rights, but I can't agree with them.Another example - under current law, a prospective mother can avail of an abortion where the threat of suicide poses a threat to the life of the mother (and hence also the foetus). But a prospective father, even where a threat of suicide exists, cannot, by law, ensure that a pregnancy is continued. Our society does not currently value the role of fathers during pregnancy as much as mothers, this I believe is a mistake, and future, more enlightened people will come around to this view also. I do however understand that the majority of Irish legislators do not feel this way and hence - for the protection my prospective fathers' rights (which would not be protected if the current proposed abortion legislation is passed) I cannot vote for the repeal of the 8th Amendment.
Because ultimately it sets an unborn foetus out as an entity which is independent from the woman's bodily integrity. Which it's not. The two are invariably intertwined. The foetus might contain DNA contributed by the father, but that doesn't confer that father any rights over the womb in which that foetus is growing. That's the difference.
And as a result society values the woman's place in pregnancy higher than the man's because she's the one who is pregnant, it is her womb in which it is growing, and the womb does not become community property just because there's a foetus in it.
And that's ultimately what the abortion discussion is - should a woman have the right to unilaterally decide what happens with her womb? The foetus is a secondary concern, however heartless that might sound. Abortion is not about killing a foetus, it's about ending a pregnancy. It's about exercising the individual's right to makes choices about their own body.
If the day ever comes that a pregnancy can be terminated and a foetus of any age extracted and "grown", then we have a whole new ethical debate.
But for now there's only one debate - whether the existence of foetus should give the state control over a woman's womb.
Your thought experiment on the suicidal father is interesting, but not a like-for-like. In that case it's a form of blackmail - "You need to do something for me or I will kill myself". If it was OK for a woman to be forced to continue a pregnancy to save the father's life, where does that obligation end? If I threaten to kill myself unless someone gives me a kidney, should they be forced to do it? What if I threaten suicide unless the state gives me a million euro?
The individual who is suicidal still has their bodily integrity intact. They're not being forced to do anything.0 -
Another country, just like this one, which forces raped children to remain pregnant and give birth. Is this really the best we can do? How can anyone justify this?:mad:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/mar/22/paraguayan-rape-victim-14-dies-giving-birth?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
“A 14-year-old rape victim has died during childbirth in Paraguay, where abortion is forbidden unless giving birth threatens the life of the mother.
Her body was not ready for a pregnancy,” Hernán Martínez, the director of the National Hospital of Itauguá, told local media.”
Edit to add:
“According figures from the health ministry, 889 girls between the ages of 10 and 14 gave birth in 2015.
Rosalía Vega, director of the Paraguayan section of Amnesty International, said: “We are a country that does not have a sex education based on science. The authorities take advantage of the Catholic majority in the country to promote laws based on religious convictions, not scientific.”
Sounds familiar?0 -
[snipped]
You see? When they told us in the 70s that allowing contraception even for married couples would be the slippery slope, look how right they were!!
A few decades ago you'd have been pregnant whether you liked it or not, woman, and to hell with your slipped discs! No question of "thinking of starting a family" that just happened, and you'd have had to put up with it like all theother women around you. :rolleyes:
(When you think of it, some women, maybe many women, probably did suffer for years due to repeated pregnancies and got no sympathy and often very little help. And were considered awful nags if they complained.)0 -
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »If you really want to make yourself ill, look up Symphysiotomy.
i wouldn't recommend reading about that to anybody of a sensitive disposition.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »i wouldn't recommend reading about that to anybody of a sensitive disposition.
But those were the good old days!0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »But those were the good old days!
I read a description of it once and was sickened afterwards. Even thinking about it now is bad.0 -
Advertisement
-
I’m pretty sure that symphisiotomy is why one of my grandmothers wound up an invalid.0
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »If you really want to make yourself ill, look up Symphysiotomy.
Just barbaric0 -
-
thee glitz wrote: »Sounds like they had the laws and facilities in place, but screwed up.
If that's what you need to tell yourself because you can't handle the idea that a regime not that different to our own ended up killing a young girl, I can't stop you. I might despair at your attitude, but I don't think you're prepared to face the facts.
Legal regimes that require imminent risk to the lives of women before any abortion can be performed, end up killing women and girls.
But you will, I'm sure, continue to argue black is white rather than accept what is obvious to anyone with an ounce of empathy.0 -
thee glitz wrote: »Sounds like they had the laws and facilities in place, but screwed up.
Yeah , I take it your making a Joke??0 -
Right. So, if this child had survived and given birth to her rapist's child, everything is hunky-fucking-dory then according to you.thee glitz wrote: »Sounds like they had the laws and facilities in place, but screwed up.
That's lovely. You're a shining example of pro-life humanitarianism.0 -
-
-
If that's what you need to tell yourself because you can't handle the idea that a regime not that different to our own ended up killing a young girl, I can't stop you. I might despair at your attitude, but I don't think you're prepared to face the facts.
Well they did - why are you saying otherwise? If it's legal where the life of the mother is at risk, and it would have saved her life, then they messed up.Legal regimes that require imminent risk to the lives of women before any abortion can be performed, end up killing women and girls.
We should fix the system to give greater comfort to doctors and not require them to be consulting lawyers.But you will, I'm sure, continue to argue black is white rather than accept what is obvious to anyone with an ounce of empathy.
The post I quoted implied that abortion in this case would have been legal. I didn't make anything up.Yeah , I take it your making a Joke??
Just going by the post I quoted.0 -
Advertisement
-
(When you think of it, some women, maybe many women, probably did suffer for years due to repeated pregnancies and got no sympathy and often very little help. And were considered awful nags if they complained.)
My grandmothers had 10 children each but they both had at least 2 additional pregnancies (that I know of) that ended in miscarriage. One of my grandmothers also gave birth to a baby who died 3 days later. All of that was in the 50s and 60s.
My husband's mother gave birth to a baby who died 5 days later, that was in the late 70s.
Like you say, who knows if they wanted to go through all those pregnancies, back then I feel like it was just a fact of life.
As an aside, my mother and her siblings did not have a good childhood. The older ones (and my mother was the eldest) looked after the younger ones, my grandfather worked all hours and was an alcoholic with a temper, my grandmother worked part time and looked after the house, the cleaning and cooking, which, for 12 people was time consuming.
My mother put me and my sister through an awful childhood. I won't go into detail as it's off topic but maybe if all the options had been available to my grandmother, and by options I don't just mean abortion, I mean good gynaecological care, maybe different decisions would have been made and I would have had a different life.
I hate my mother for what she put me through and continues to put me through, despite me cutting her out of my life, but even I can't deny her childhood and young adulthood had a big part to play in the way she mothered me.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement