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
woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Look, that isn't what a straw man argument is. A straw man argument is you say something and I misrepresent it to claim you said something different, something I can prove wrong, often because I couldn't disprove your original point.Little CuChulainn wrote: »And public opinion is made up of individual opinions. What exactly is the issue here? You're asking why my opinion is valid enough to be law. Why should yours? Why should anyones? Even the basic human rights people keep referring to are made based on opinion, as is the constitution. Can you explain why you think "it's only your opinion" is a valid reason not to legislate something?
It's a complete strawman. You're premise is that that racism was wrong therefore all law can be wrong therefore abortion law is wrong. You haven't actually shown any tangible link between laws against abortion and laws which where racist. You've simply made the statement that they are one and the same.
So to summarise before any more stupid questions. All law is based on opinion, as are all our rights. People sat down and thought about what they didn't like and signed it into law. Trying to dismiss someones opinion on what the law should be by stating it's only their opinion is ludicrous as the exact same argument can be made against you
People keep using rape as some wildcard to try and dismiss all argument. There's an old legal principle which states that hard cases make bad law. You don't structure a law based on worst case scenarios. You structure it based on the normal and add exceptions. And unless someone has evidence that the majority of abortions are as a result of rape then it goes in the exception tab. To use an analogy. Most people except thieving is wrong. If you caught someone stealing you would want them to be punished. But what if the person you caught was stealing solely to feed his children. Most people would have sympathy. Does this mean we should legalise all theft just in case someone has to steal to feed their family? No, you introduce something else to make an exception for such a case.
Just to reiterate my position, I believe that after a certain stage of development a human life is created, a life which deserves the same rights as any other, primarily the right to life. Many people have this same position but place the stage of development at different times. As such, the childs rights must now be balanced with the mothers. For me, there must be a very good reason to terminate a life at this stage. To save the mothers life is a good one. The child being a product of rape is not. There's no doubt it can be traumatic on the mother but I don't see that as a good enough reason to terminate a life. People claim this makes the mother a second class citizen. Frankly, that's bull****, the only people creating second class citizens are the people who claim a life exists but downgrades that to "potential life" when it suits the situation. It's a hypocritical position without any thought.
As to the threat of suicide, I see no reason presented so far why an abortion should be considered in this case. What benefit is an abortion supposed to bring a person suffering depression?
I haven't done that. I've made a comparison you don't like. Not the same thing at all. And I stand by my comparison, which you haven't in any way disproved.
You have also gone off on a complete rant which is pointless and nonsensical. Rape isn't being used as wild card here, it is relevant to the thread, because the woman involved was apparently raped. She isn't suffering depression and found herself pregnant, she became suicidal because she is being forced to carry her rapist's child against her will. That may not bother you much, but it bothers a lot of people. She requested a termination in the first trimester, apparently made a suicide attempt at 16 weeks, and was then tricked/forced into a surgical "termination" at 25 weeks instead of the early termination she should have been entitled to, likely resulting in a seriously disabled baby.
You have ignored all that and more to insist on some nonsense about rape as a wild card.
Here are a few of the practical questions this case raises :
- should she have been allowed a first trimester abortion when she requested it?
If not, why not?
- since the HSE was aware of her suicidality by 16 weeks (if not before) what caused the delay to 24 weeks? (Were mistakes made or is that an unavoidable delay due to how the law works?)
If the latter, is a 25 week C-S a satisfactory outcome, or does the law absolutely need to be changed?
If the outcome could be improved, how should that be done? Legislation? Better suicide detection? What?
If you have ideas for any of those, I'd be interested to hear them.
Wrangling over rhetorical devices, not so much.
0 -
-
-
-
-
No it doesnt because I didn't say the bit in bold.Little CuChulainn wrote: »I said all laws are based on opinion. You misrepresent me and claim I am justifying racist laws. You show how racist laws are wrong. You don't disprove my original claim (i.e. all laws are based on opinion) by instead proving something else (opinions can be wrong).
Perfectly fits your definition of a strawman.
And no, the point isn't that opinions can be wrong, but that it isn't true that laws are acceptable just because they are based on opinions. Which was what you are saying about abortion - if most people believe that abortion must be banned, even when they themselves aren't ever going to need one, that is enough to make such a law acceptable. But it isn't.
Most laws are not actually based on majority opinion alone, they start from certain fundamental ground rules (freedom of the individual, the right to possess property etc) and only limit those rights when there is felt to be good reason.
We accept laws making us wear seatbelts because we believe that the improvement in safety outweighs the loss of personal freedom. The improvement in safety is proven, and the "opinion" is whether or not you think that improvement is important enough to justify the loss of personal freedom involved. Not everyone does, so in the USA, seatbelts are not obligatory in all states. But there is no "opinion" about the safety aspect.
So your point that opinions set law is not correct on this case - to enforce a law on other people, there also has to be proof that the law is based on more than just opinion. And that isn't the case with the law on abortion. There is no scientific agreement on whether or when a fetus becomes a person with the same rights as anyone else.
The rest is mostly wrong too, but given your incapacity to understand the difference between an an analogy and a straw man, even after it's been explained, I think I'll wait before trying to explain the rest to you. Let it sink in a bit first. 0 -
-
No it doesnt because I didn't say the bit in bold.
And no, the point isn't that opinions can be wrong, but that it isn't true that laws are acceptable just because they are based on opinions. Which was what you are saying about abortion - if most people believe that abortion must be banned, even when they themselves aren't ever going to need one, that is enough to make such a law acceptable. But it isn't.
I never said all laws were acceptable because they were popular. That was all you. I said that was how all laws were formed.Most laws are not actually based on majority opinion alone, they start from certain fundamental ground rules (freedom of the individual, the right to possess property etc) and only limit those rights when there is felt to be good reason.
We accept laws making us wear seatbelts because we believe that the improvement in safety outweighs the loss of personal freedom. The improvement in safety is proven, and the "opinion" is whether or not you think that improvement is important enough to justify the loss of personal freedom involved. Not everyone does, so in the USA, seatbelts are not obligatory in all states. But there is no "opinion" about the safety aspect.
So your point that opinions set law is not correct on this case - to enforce a law on other people, there also has to be proof that the law is based on more than just opinion. And that isn't the case with the law on abortion. There is no scientific agreement on whether or when a fetus becomes a person with the same rights as anyone else.
The rest is mostly wrong too, but given your incapacity to understand the difference between an an analogy and a straw man, even after it's been explained, I think I'll wait before trying to explain the rest to you. Let it sink in a bit first.
The fundamental ground rules you cite are also based on opinion. They didn't always exist and have evolved over time based on popular belief. Your basic argument is that my opinion should not be law because it cannot be proven that it is a life being extinguished. You completely ignore the fact that the same argument can be made in the negative.This is nothing more that provocative incitement.
I find the idea that a life is better off not being brought into the world rather than know their father was a rapist to be abhorrent and fully deserving of the language used.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Originally Posted by volchitsa
All you are saying is that the fetus is alive, since it can be killed.No i am not. You're jumping the gun and arguing a point that was never made.
I am asking irishpancake whether, in his or her opinion, foetuses can be victims.
Hi conor, I am the male pancake variety
Honestly, I don't actually know where you were trying to get to in this circular argumentation....
I simply asked:I am interested in finding out just what legal rights attach to a "victim fetus", presumably expired?
I am asking about legal rights, under whatever law or constitutional provision?
I accept that that is not exactly what was said here:
Quote:if a foetus can be a victim, then a fortiori, a foetus is entitled to certain rights.
What certain rights, in the circumstances of a fetus which is a victim, presumably a dead fetus, in plain language?
Is it that this victim fetus may in fact be alive, and having the "potential" of surviving to viability?
So, the "fetal victim-hood" in these circumstances, would need further explanation and exploration.
I don't actually think the "Sunday roast" analogy is helpful, particularly in a discussion about potential human beings.
I think it will generate more heat than light, to the detriment of proper debate.
But I respect your right to make such analogy.
So, I will attempt to answer, even though I'm not entirely just what point you are making with all this stuff.
Q: can foetuses can be victims.
A: your point was about an expired "victim foetus"....I don't believe it is possible to either vindicate or assert the rights of something which no longer exists, and will never exist in human or any other form.
But, before an expiration event, this fetus [unborn] had that right, which is acknowledged by the Irish Constitution, the right to life, which it guarantees to respect, defend and vindicate, equally with the right to life of the mother, but only as far as is practicable:The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
It is impossible to respect, defend or vindicate the right to life of a dead, or expired, entity, the so-called "victim foetus" as that is simply not practicable.
I hope this satisfies your query.
All the above is as provided for in the Irish Constitution.
I don't know what the so-called victim-hood of a previously unexpired, but now expired, "foetus victim" is meant to mean, in real world terminology.
That's why I asked those questions I have quoted above.
I simply don't know what you are getting at, or what point you are attempting to prove or disprove.
Honestly, at this stage, I don't think you are entirely sure yourself, beyond argumentation which goes round and round, and ends up again where it first started.
So, I'm finished with this particular aspect of the on-going debate. Cheers.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement