Abortion Discussion

Vivisectus · 28-08-2014 11:27am

MrPudding wrote: »

Really? It certainly isn't for me. Initially, a long time ago, I may have followed the personhood idea, but for me there are too many problems with it. The pro-choice side are divided on when personal begins, there is no consistency. The anti-choice side (I will not call them pro-life because a person that is against an abortion where the woman and foetus will likely die if the pregnancy continues cannot be called pro-life, at least in any world I am aware of) tend to be quite consistent, life begins at conception and personhood, as a concept, appears to be less important.

My position on abortion is based on a conflict of rights. For me this is simpler. Whilst it might sound harsh, I simply don't care of the foetus is a person, up to a certain point I believe that the rights of the woman should overrule the rights of the foetus. As the pregnancy continues the right of the foetus gain more strength.

As a result I believe that up to 14 to 16 weeks I believe a women should have a right to an abortion irrespective of reason. The right of the woman absolutely outweigh any right the foetus might rely on. Beyond this I believe abortion should still be available, but the conflict of rights now become more difficult. I would still allow abortion due to rape, FFA or threat to the health and/or life of the mother.

My preference is always that abortion should be avoided where possible, but the choice should be there. I also think it is pointless to try to argue 'personhood' or 'where life begins', it is about a conflict of rights, and it is completely insane to think that a foetus, particularly of less than 10 weeks gestations, should have stronger rights than the born person carrying it. And this is not about the foetus having equal rights, it is about the foetus having stronger rights. Whilst it might be framed as it merely having an equal, to the mother,l right to life the manifestation of this equal rights gives it is greater right. Its right can now force the woman to follow a particular course of action, continue with the pregnancy, against her will. That is not equality of rights.

MrP

You raise a good point, and a point where my own stance gets a little inconsistent. I instinctively want to grant protection to a fetus that could possibly suffer or experience something, but I am not at all comfortable with the result: having to legislate the contents of someone's womb, enforcing things that affect someone's bodily integrity in such a massive way...

Balmed Out · 28-08-2014 12:14pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So if we are going to use brain development as a criterion for refusing abortion, in reality the cut off point in the UK of 24 weeks is a far better cut off than Balmed Out's 6 weeks (possible earliest detection of random synapse firing).

Im not going to read a long scientific paper but as I understand it the 24 week point is where they have less random more consistent "brain waves" or eeg patterns in the same way that we mark brain death and I would certainly be against abortions at this time unless in exceptional circumstances although at this point i presume rather then an abortion they may be able to survive outside the womb so its a moot point.
I still prefer to be far more cautious though.

irishpancake · 28-08-2014 12:15pm

Absolam wrote: »

Does it bother you that your entire argument is based on the fact that you inserted the word 'all' into my point?
You might do better to attempt to refute the point I made, rather than the one you would have liked me to have made.

That's some fairly extravagant soap boxing to be based on inserting just one word into someone else's point. I don't think I even alluded to RCC sexual abuse....

Well, you said "Muslims" without qualifying if you were referring to all or some.

I asked, all you needed to do was confirm what you mean by "Muslims"

"You have evidence regarding those statements, regarding "Muslims"....[presumably meaning all Muslims]??"

I did also allude to the your use of "RCC", apparently as a descriptor for Catholics.

To whom does this refer, in the context of your statement "Surely from an RCC point of view the Constitution is irrelevant anyway"??

Because that is a pretty sweeping statement/allegation to make in a State which has a huge majority of RCC Legislators and Judiciary, both institutions in our Democratic system of checks and balances, defined in the very Constitution you claim to be irrelevant to RCC's??

Or did you mean this in a different sense too??

Or do you believe the use of " fuzzy" language, or ambiguous meanings makes it easier to say "I didn't say that", or "I meant something other than what I wrote"??

If you want to write something which is not capable of more than one interpretation as to meaning, then write precisely what you mean.

I didn't change anything in your various points, what ever they meant.

I interpreted what it was you meant.

Kinda like Binchey with that PLAC Amendment, and the ISC in 1992.

Brian Shanahan · 28-08-2014 12:39pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

Im not going to read a long scientific paper but as I understand it the 24 week point is where they have less random more consistent "brain waves" or eeg patterns in the same way that we mark brain death and I would certainly be against abortions at this time unless in exceptional circumstances although at this point i presume rather then an abortion they may be able to survive outside the womb so its a moot point.
I still prefer to be far more cautious though.

The single most important word in your reply is "random". Before twenty weeks the brain patterns are random and unstructured, therefore they are not a sign of proper brain activity, just noise.

Being more cautious than the point where the brain takes its first faltering steps to becoming what the fully developed human brain is (remember basic brain developments continue until the child is at least two years old, mostly by the pruning of unnecessary pathways from the brain) being over cautious, like killing someone because they may have Spanish flu (the strain of flu that killed c.50m people in 1918-1919) when they start coughing. Viability outside the womb, without undue risk of severe physical and mental defects (because frankly, a lot of what is viable under medical technology is taking a foetus out and expecting massive mental and physical problems and retardations) is where I would put the cut-off point, which is somewhere between 24-28 weeks into gestation.

swampgas · 28-08-2014 1:08pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

I already stated my opinion on that... For me once I believe it is alive I would be against termination. I would encourage an early abortion though should that be the mothers wish.

I too would much prefer to see abortions carried out as early as possible.

If you are willing to take the woman's wishes into account, you are effectively pro-choice to some extent. The problem here is that even if you agree in certain circumstances that a woman who wants an abortion should be allowed one, the law simply does not allow for it.

I think it is important for people to discriminate between being anti-abortion in a personal sense (i.e. they would not take up the option of an abortion in most cases, even if legal) and being anti-abortion in the wider, legal sense, which means supporting the current system where nobody is allowed an abortion ever (except maybe for suicide risk, and it's debatable whether this is really available in practice).

Absolam · 28-08-2014 1:10pm

irishpancake wrote: »

Well, you said "Muslims" without qualifying if you were referring to all or some. I asked, all you needed to do was confirm what you mean by "Muslims" "You have evidence regarding those statements, regarding "Muslims"....[presumably meaning all Muslims]??"

I probaby would have answered, only you didn't exactly wait for an answer before you leapt to a presumption. Were you worried that I wouldn't give the answer you needed and all your busy wiki'ing of Islam would be for nothing?

irishpancake wrote: »

I did also allude to the your use of "RCC", apparently as a descriptor for Catholics.

How 'apparently' exactly?

irishpancake wrote: »

To whom does this refer, in the context of your statement "Surely from an RCC point of view the Constitution is irrelevant anyway"??

Is that a rhetorical question? It's just you seem to have assumed my answer already, just like the last time...

irishpancake wrote: »

Because that is a pretty sweeping statement/allegation to make in a State which has a huge majority of RCC Legislators and Judiciary, both institutions in our Democratic system of checks and balances, defined in the very Constitution you claim to be irrelevant to RCC's??

Well, if you assume 'RCC' is a descriptor for Catholics, I suppose you can construe it to be a sweeping statement that the Constitution is irrelevent to Catholics. Though I must point out that you've gone from my use of 'RCC', to your use of 'RCC's' in this case, which rather alters the meaning. Also, in your last post you assumed that RCC referred to the priesthood (which kind of precludes your use in RCC Legislators and Judiciary above), then asked if it referred to 'The Church as understood in Vatican II, or just the Hierarchy, Pope, and priesthood' (which still pretty much precludes your constructions above). You've already told us what you think aloyisious thinks RCC means, with some lengthy commentary as a result. Do you think you're going anywhere with this?

irishpancake wrote: »

Or did you mean this in a different sense too??

You mean other than the sense you altered it to, like your last post? Yes, I do mean it as I originally wrote it, not as you rewrote it.

irishpancake wrote: »

Or do you believe the use of " fuzzy" language, or ambiguous meanings makes it easier to say "I didn't say that", or "I meant something other than what I wrote"??

Well, I suppose language can be a bit fuzzy. For instance, if you add words or letters or punctuation to a sentence it changes it's meaning.

irishpancake wrote: »

If you want to write something which is not capable of more than one interpretation as to meaning, then write precisely what you mean.

It would be simpler all round if you just didn't add your own words?

irishpancake wrote: »

I didn't change anything in your various points, what ever they meant.

Really? So 'Muslims' to 'all Muslims' doesn't change anything? "RCC' to "RCC's' doesn't change anything?

irishpancake wrote: »

I interpreted what it was you meant.

So, you didn't know what they meant, but you interpreted them for me into something you thought you could soapbox about?

irishpancake wrote: »

Kinda like Binchey with that PLAC Amendment, and the ISC in 1992.

What, you rewrote what she said too?

Balmed Out · 28-08-2014 1:15pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The single most important word in your reply is "random". Before twenty weeks the brain patterns are random and unstructured, therefore they are not a sign of proper brain activity, just noise.

I don't know enough for my choice of the word random to be used in a scientific context and I don't think your conclusions are very scientific either, just noise....?

Balmed Out · 28-08-2014 1:20pm

swampgas wrote: »

If you are willing to take the woman's wishes into account, you are effectively pro-choice to some extent.

I am but in the sense that I am both pro and anti abortion like most people.
Any referendum I hope would have a number of different motions

Zubeneschamali · 28-08-2014 1:39pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

Any referendum I hope would have a number of different motions

Much better to delete the clause from the constitution, and legislate.

But that would require politicians with backbones.

Absolam · 28-08-2014 1:46pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Much better to delete the clause from the constitution, and legislate.But that would require politicians with backbones.

I disagree; if that's what the majority of people want then politicians will climb over each other to give it to them, not a trace of backbone required. Just think how much tax is lost when people go overseas for abortions. Just think how many jobs could be created.
It's a political goldmine if they can be certain it's what people want.

Cabaal · 28-08-2014 1:56pm

Absolam wrote: »

I disagree; if that's what the majority of people want then politicians will climb over each other to give it to them, not a trace of backbone required. Just think how much tax is lost when people go overseas for abortions. Just think how many jobs could be created.
It's a political goldmine if they can be certain it's what people want.

The logic you are applying seems sort of flawed.....

Much like wanting the situation regarding our strict ant-abortion laws to change, the people wanted divorce in Ireland for years...but we certainly didn't see TD's climbing over each other to facilitate its introduction.

Think of all the jobs divorce creates in Ireland, all the solicitors and their employee's it keeps going. All the estate agents it benefits. All the moving company's that can benefit. All the extra marriages its creates from people that get divorced and re-married etc.

Its almost laughable now to think of a time we're people couldn't get divorced, yet it was something TD's kept kicking down the road time and time again.

It's also a topic that the religious organizations lobbied hard again.....there seems to be a trend with them, anything to stop people having more choice in their lives. Guess they get upset when they can't control and shame people into submission anymore,

Absolam · 28-08-2014 2:16pm

Perhaps I should have said a majority of people are prepared to say they want then.
As far as divorce goes I think you're right, I think TDs avoided coming out in favour of it for quite some time. But I don't think they were afraid of what religious organisations could do to them, they were afraid of what their constituents could do to them. No TD is going to stand up for something unless they think it's not going to make them lose their seat. Or they think they'll lose their seat if they don't.

Cabaal · 28-08-2014 2:23pm

Absolam wrote: »

Perhaps I should have said a majority of people are prepared to say they want then.
As far as divorce goes I think you're right, I think TDs avoided coming out in favour of it for quite some time. But I don't think they were afraid of what religious organisations could do to them, they were afraid of what their constituents could do to them. No TD is going to stand up for something unless they think it's not going to make them lose their seat. Or they think they'll lose their seat if they don't.

Thats exactly what happened, the fact we as a population wanted divorce didn't matter...a TD still would have been taking a big chance to stand in support of it as they very well may loose their seat thanks to parish pump politics.

Its exactly what the situation was with marriage equality, but thats changed.

Now if a person stands against equal rights for our fellow man/women we can call them out for what they are...homophobic. This is why although the same religions organizations are against marriage equality they are awful careful about how they lobby against it.....we'll have interesting months ahead

Anyway, the abortion vote is a tricky subject. Its something we as a country need to vote on. But sadly its something thats going to be kicked down the road.

In many respects I actually hope the UK do put restrictions on Irish women using NHS services, it'll be a awful situation for the women but it very well may force this issue to a vote if it puts a few women in a situation they feel they have no options in.

As we've seen in this country when it comes to discussing abortion and our views to sex/pregnancy it takes the death of a women or girl before we as a country decide to change anything. It doesn't matter if it's the 1980's or 2013, it takes a death. Thats not a good thing by any means

alaimacerc · 28-08-2014 3:06pm

Absolam wrote: »

As far as divorce goes I think you're right, I think TDs avoided coming out in favour of it for quite some time. But I don't think they were afraid of what religious organisations could do to them, they were afraid of what their constituents could do to them.

That's a very nice little distinction! Though one that's a little moot if you think the one can have a significant influence over the other. Especially when, as I pointed out earlier, there's a loud and active segment of the electorate who'll lobby hard on this (and similar "values" issues), and give the appearance of it being decisive in their vote, whereas many "liberal" voters will, if asked, tell pollsters they favour liberalisation, but evidently be in little hurry to rank it more important than "pocketbook" issues (or good old-fashioned tribal politics, shameless localism, etc.)

alaimacerc · 28-08-2014 3:15pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

I don't know enough for my choice of the word random to be used in a scientific context and I don't think your conclusions are very scientific either, just noise....?

So, in conclusion:

* You wish to frame the law -- the constitutional law, indeed -- in terms of what the science says;
* You don't understand what the science says;
* You have no willingness to try to understand what the science says;
* If anyone else tries to tell you want the science says, you'll simply tell them they're wrong.

This goes not have the hallmarks of a productive line of discussion. If you're going to take six weeks as axiomatic, that's not science, that's an arbitrary decision on your part. And even moreso to whip off another week "for luck". (BTW, are you talking six weeks gestational age, or six weeks of embryonic development?)

alaimacerc · 28-08-2014 3:41pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s tempting to criticise the other side as inconsistent or hypocritical if they fail to adopt the absolutist position that we want to ascribe to them. But before we do, reflect that exactly the same criticism could probably be made of our own position.

It's especially tempting to criticise people if they speak and act in a way that's inconsistent with an absolutist or extreme that they themselves have by (other) speech or act associated themselves with. And justified, to boot.

Some people will consistently argue an intermediate position, sure. In such cases it's nonetheless still legitimate to criticise the (alleged) internal illogicality of such positions. What's the alternative: to say "yes, you've proposed an arbitrary halfway house; how nice!"?

That's not to say the above two are entirely mutually exclusive. What with inconsistency being what it is, some people are inconsistent in their inconsistency!

Zubeneschamali · 28-08-2014 3:44pm

And don't forget, once the next fudge is in the Constitution we won't be able to change it for donkey's years when we realise that the Supreme Court doesn't think it means what we thought it meant.

Mind you, not everyone was totally thick last time. From right at the end of this Dail debate in 1983:

The simple view that was taken of this form of wording, before the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions made their comments, without a detailed examination of the wording being carried was that if one supported this amendment in a referendum one was anti-abortion but if one voted against it one was pro-abortion. That is one of the great ironies of the debate that has taken place so far, although in the last seven days a good deal more realism has been injected into the debate than we have had before. The irony is that I have no doubt, not merely from the interpretation the Attorney General has given but from the other interpretations that can be validly taken from the amendment, that if it in its present form becomes part of our Constitution it will essentially secure a constitutional judgment in the not too distant future requiring the House to enact legislation to permit women to have abortions.

alaimacerc · 28-08-2014 3:48pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

Many feel abortion is ok until a certain stage of development, others in cases of rape, fetal abnormalities or defect, non viability etc. I think the majority would feel that abortion is fine in certain circumstances with only a few radicals on either side disagreeing with that. Its what those circumstances are that's the bone of contention.

I think "few radicals" is a curious characterisation of the state of affairs where we have an abortion law that allows for terminations only in case of significant risk of maternal death... and we have large pickets saying that's too "liberal". (And UN reports pointing out this is still insufficient to satisfying the State's international undertakings.)

In the above it's not at all clear what the "opposite" set of "few radicals" are. Someone who'd like our law to be roughly in line with France, say?

MrPudding · 28-08-2014 4:00pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

I think the overwhelming majority of people who would vote no to a yes / no in an all cases abortion referendum would be completely supportive of it in the case whereby the pregnancy is non viable.

I don't believe bishops, priests, popes or any 'real' catholics would be supportive of this. Remember, they are life at any cost, even if it costs a life... I presume you missed the case of the 11 year old girl in South America... She was raped by her father and was expecting twins. What do you think twins would do to an 11 year old girl, physically, let alone the mental trauma. Her mother took her for an abortion. The local bishop supported the father, that's the rapist in case you forgot, and when they were unsuccessful in stopping the abortion he ex-communicated the mother and doctor. Now, a very extreme case, but some of you more restrictive anti-choice colleagues would not be a flexible as you.

Balmed Out wrote: »

That would only be the case where the continuation of the pregnancy will result in life for the child and death for the mother. Again I think the overwhelming majority of people who would vote no to a yes / no in all cases abortion referendum would be completely supportive of it in the case whereby the mothers life is at risk.

No, not really. If the foetus can prevent the woman from taking a particular course of action then it must have a stronger right. The rights in question might be different, so for the right to life then you would be correct. But when you consider one's right to body integrity, something that we men do not need to worry about as no equivalent violation of that right is possible for men. But for the woman, her right to decide what can or cannot be done to or with her body is overruled by the rights of the foetus, even when that foetus is not viable and is little more than a pea sized blob of undifferentiated cells. This cannot be correct.

How about this little thought experiment, shamelessly stolen from Julian Baggini. You are at a party one night and get a little drunk (please note, I am not related unwanted pregnancy to being drunk, though undoubtedly many pregnancies are the result of a little too much to drink, I know one of my children is. :eek:). You wake up the next morning and you can't move. As you look around you can see you are in a bed and have quite a few tubes attached to various parts in your body. The pipes lead to some machines, and they are all connected to another person in another bed. Presently a doctor arrives, he thanks you for agreeing to keep the man in the bed beside you alive by sharing the use of your organs with you. It seems that, whilst you were drunk, you agreed to act as the life support system for a seriously ill person. You will be connected to him for 9 months, and without the connection he will die.

Do you think you should be allowed to withdraw your consent?

Medical ethics allows that consent to any treatment can be removed at any time, irrespective of the consequences. So, I can agree to a kidney transplant, or a bone marrow transplant or even a liver transplant, and right up to the moment where it happens I can withdraw my consent, even if that means, with absolute certainty the prospective donor will die. His right to life does not trump my right to body integrity. This prospective donor, a born living being, has lived at least part of a life, has a family, maybe has a spouse and kids, has memories, a working brain, hopes, dreams, loves and fears. I can sentence him to death simply because I don't want to do it anymore. But a woman, who is in the early stages of pregnancy with a foetus that does not even have a functioning brain does not have the right to hr body integrity...? How is that right?

Balmed Out wrote: »

You're very first sentence states that for you the issue isn't whether a fetus is a person or not but to me the whole post and you're opinion seems predicated in that the fetus isn't a person which is a fair enough point of view, It's impossible to say when a bunch of cells becomes a person and there would be a million different opinions.

No it is not predicated on wether or not the foetus. If you consider it as a conflict of rights personhood does not need to come into it. Personhood can't come into it because you have people that believe it is a person from conception. A personhood argument will not work with them, if anything will, and a the great Gregory House MD said 'you can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.'

MrP

Balmed Out · 28-08-2014 4:15pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

So, in conclusion:

* You wish to frame the law -- the constitutional law, indeed -- in terms of what the science says;
* You don't understand what the science says;
* You have no willingness to try to understand what the science says;
* If anyone else tries to tell you want the science says, you'll simply tell them they're wrong.

This goes not have the hallmarks of a productive line of discussion. If you're going to take six weeks as axiomatic, that's not science, that's an arbitrary decision on your part. And even moreso to whip off another week "for luck". (BTW, are you talking six weeks gestational age, or six weeks of embryonic development?)

no in conclusion you wish to misinterpret and misrepresent whatever anybody with a different opinion you you says.

MrPudding · 28-08-2014 4:16pm

Vivisectus wrote: »

You raise a good point, and a point where my own stance gets a little inconsistent. I instinctively want to grant protection to a fetus that could possibly suffer or experience something, but I am not at all comfortable with the result: having to legislate the contents of someone's womb, enforcing things that affect someone's bodily integrity in such a massive way...

Irrespective of how much we support a woman's right to decide what is done with her body, I believe there is a point where it has to be said that an abortion is not appropriate, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

What is that point? I am no expert, so I am open to suggestions. I inexpert view would be that between 22 weeks and safe viability access should be restricted to FFA, rape, health and life of the mother. Beyond safe viability it gets trickier for me... FFA and life of the mother are definite circumstances where I would think access to abortion would be allowed, though clearly if it is beyond viable then there may be other options. Rape and the health of the mother are more troublesome for me, and could be linked, mental health for example. Whilst I would find it troubling, I still think I would err towards the mothers side.

Late term abortions for anything other than FFA and life of the mother are tricky, thankfully they are extremely rare.

MrP

alaimacerc · 28-08-2014 4:19pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

I'm well aware that the order isn't correct didn't feel it to be relevant. Gold star for pointing it out. Well done.

It's a rather important point, as your whole argument falls on getting the developmental science wrong, in precisely the way your order in the preceding imples.

I didn't actually realize this at the time of writing -- until I read your other posts elsewhere in the thread, and fairly boggled that you were asserted that it really was six weeks. I made my own comparison about six weeks gestation embryos on the basis that it was well before the foetal stage, much less the second trimester, so no-one could possibly be wheeling out a 'brain' argument about that point. Repeat it with four weeks, if that helps -- still demonstrably alive, still developmentally individuated.

What I meant is that the usual arguments by pro and anti abortionists arent going to sway me. Its a tired debate.

I'm not sure why you assume you're on the "jury". Your participation here implies to me you're one of the (opposing team of) "lawyers". Don't be complaining about people not trying to butter you up, but instead attacking the flaws in your arguments.

What do you think ?
Seems from what you say that you would set some sort of arbitrary cut of point? Should we pick one the same as the UK or Europe for no reason other then they do it? Why if you feel its ok at 12 weeks is it not ok at 20 weeks?

If there's to be a cutoff point, I want it to be less arbitrary than the one you're floating, for a start! I would favour, at a minimum, essentially equal and unrestricted access to first trimester abortions. But sure, it's never going to be completely cut-and-dried and come down to a crisp, objective test. Several (perhaps most?) countries actually have a "stepped" cutoff, with increasingly strict criteria and procedures for obtaining one. Implicitly, in the fairly rare cases of prosecutions for "illegal" abortions, gestational age factors in hugely. There was a sensationally-headlined case a while back in the UK where a woman self-administered a 39-week abortion, and they pretty much threw the book at her, with the judge treating it not as an illegal abortion or even infanticide, but offering comparisons with murder and manslaughter. I doubt that it would have been treated in any vaguely similar way had she done the same at 14 weeks -- or even at 24.

Zubeneschamali · 28-08-2014 4:21pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I am no expert, so I am open to suggestions

I also am no expert, so I would leave it up to the pregnant woman and her doctor, who are the most concerned and the most expert.

alaimacerc · 28-08-2014 4:27pm

Absolam wrote: »

They are what?

They are "the preferred self-indentifiers". Y'know, the thing what you just said immediately previously. That I directly quoted.

And no, I'm not policing it, I'm saying that if someone says "There are anti-abortion athiests", and someone else says, "No they must be anti-choice athiests", and then goes on to claim "no anti-choice athiests have appeared to support your assertion", they're rather ignoring the fact that the assertion was "anti abortion" not "anti choice".

I think this clearly amounts to no more than a "don't call me late for dinner" objection. You're not, as far as I can see, drawing any denotational distinction between these two sets of people; you're just flagging up that they prefer one term with one connotation, to another, with a different one. And if you're not doing so on an equal opportunity basis, this isn't "moderate position and high levels of pedantry", it's merely "covering fire for one side".

MrPudding · 28-08-2014 4:30pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I also am no expert, so I would leave it up to the pregnant woman and her doctor, who are the most concerned and the most expert.

It's a fair point.

MrP

Balmed Out · 28-08-2014 4:50pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't believe bishops, priests, popes or any 'real' catholics would be supportive of this.

I think the majority of the Irish electorate who would vote no to an all or nothing abortion referendum would. And please im not in any grouping and have no colleagues. Putting it like that is akin to someone saying a pro choice person believes a woman has a right to terminate up to the point the baby takes its first breath.

MrPudding wrote: »

It seems that, whilst you were drunk, you agreed to act as the life support system for a seriously ill person. You will be connected to him for 9 months, and without the connection he will die.

Im sorry but I dont think thats really comparable at all.:) It is an interesting idea though, hadnt really thought of it in regards to similarities with enforced blood transfusions or borrowing organs or suchlike.
As for withdrawing consent, one could the next morning and for some time to come? The question is how much time.

Again Im not sure your next point is comparable.

What time limit and why would you set? A few people are disagreeing with my opinion some with good arguments but im not hearing their own opinion other then one copying other states for no particular reason

Balmed Out · 28-08-2014 4:56pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

If there's to be a cutoff point, I want it to be less arbitrary than the one you're floating, for a start! I would favour, at a minimum, essentially equal and unrestricted access to first trimester abortions. But sure, it's never going to be completely cut-and-dried and come down to a crisp, objective test. .

When would you cut off and why?

alaimacerc · 28-08-2014 5:10pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

When would you cut off and why?

I just answered this question, in some detail. You allergic to nuance, or something?

volchitsa · 28-08-2014 5:27pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

What time limit and why would you set? A few people are disagreeing with my opinion some with good arguments but im not hearing their own opinion other then one copying other states for no particular reason

Presumably they are "copying other states" because not to admit of any comparable physiological states to use as a guideline would mean there was absolutely no precedent for laws concerning pregnancy. That's a bit of a problem when science doesn't give a simple answer either.

It's also probably wrong. Legislation on protection during maternity leave was included in equal rights legislation, even though men can't be pregnant. The theory goes that since men can't get pregnant, any rule that penalizes a woman just for being pregnant is not acceptable from an equal rights PoV.

So the fact that pregnancy is a unique state, to some extent, has already been declared not relevant when legislating : pregnant women must have the same rights over their bodies as non pregnant woman and as men. The closest comparison is with forced organ donation, which is of course unimaginable.

So from a human rights point of view, Irish legislation is probably not easily defensible, if a clear enough case came to the ECHR. Last time the cases (A, B, C) failed on a technicality, iirc.

Balmed Out · 28-08-2014 5:38pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

I just answered this question, in some detail. You allergic to nuance, or something?

Gotta love your tone again, nice guy to be sure. You said what you would do for a start and then that you would have different criteria for different points going on from that. What those points, criteria or your reasoning for them were omitted.

Abortion Discussion

Comments