Abortion Discussion

Turtwig · 02-08-2015 4:13pm

MOD:

I'm tempted to just delete the last 50 or so posts in this thread. This is a serious ethical issues that has real-life consequences for many people. It does not deserve such an asinine standard of discussion such as the one we have just witnessed.

Dan Solo, Brian Shanahan, and OBplayer DO NOT post in this thread, or any A&A thread pertaining to abortion, for at least One Month! [Tuesday 1st September 23:59 IST] Failure to adhere to this thread ban will result in an automatic forum ban.

alaimacerc · 02-08-2015 7:15pm

Two Sheds wrote: »

Required standards of proof may vary. This is the Court of Public Opinion.

At least you're clear you're not aiming for any sort of medical, scientific, or philosophical rigour, I suppose. Alarmist sloganising is always an option, politically speaking.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Is there no way to express in words what we should consider to be a human being in receipt of full human rights and protection by society (in whatever form that may be)?

"At birth" seems to suffice for most legal purposes.

recedite wrote: »

I think yes, because having a distinct genetic blueprint from the mother, it is a separate individual.

So monozygotic twins aren't "separate individuals" from each other? And a cancerous tumour is, from its "host"? I think your criterion needs work -- though it's work that's been done for you several times already, so there's very little excuse for this sort of sloppiness at this point.

recedite wrote: »

Her body has accepted the new individual and agreed to host it, even if her mind has not yet become aware of it. I'm not drawing any particular hard and fast conclusions from that re the ethics of abortion, I'm just making the observation.

That's incredibly loaded terminology to apply to a biological process if you're not.

Implantation is not consent.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is the mother but a blob of cells?

I can only hope that's not your best chat-up material.

William Reville, in response to a utilitarian argument posed in an opinion piece in the IT a few days ago pointed to the continuum of life which starts at conception and will of it's own internal accord (failing accident, disease, abortion, etc) progress to a natural end in old age.

William Reville "pointing out" Catholic conventionalities. Now there's a shock. It's scientific nonsense to claim (or "point out") that embryonic development happens of "its own internal accord". Even a superannuated chemist like him should know that much. But obviously mere biological fact wouldn't suit his own notions as to what's "natural expression of human potential". So he'd rather simply erase any consideration of the autonomy and integrity of the (actual) person to whom "the womb" belongs to.

Two Sheds · 02-08-2015 9:06pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

"At birth" seems to suffice for most legal purposes.

No it doesn't. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly includes children before birth.

But don't feel bad - Amnesty International didn't spot it either because all those personal agendas kept getting in the way.

Loafing Oaf · 02-08-2015 9:26pm

Two Sheds wrote: »

No it doesn't. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly includes children before birth.

But don't feel bad - Amnesty International didn't spot it either because all those personal agendas kept getting in the way.

Apparently neither did the UN's own Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights, which recently called for Ireland to hold a referendum to liberalise its abortion laws. Kind of odd a UN committee going rogue in this way, acting in defiance of the UN's institutional position on the issue. You'd think Ban-Ki-Moon et al would bring them into line...

Delirium · 02-08-2015 9:26pm

Two Sheds wrote: »

No it doesn't. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly includes children before birth.

But don't feel bad - Amnesty International didn't spot it either because all those personal agendas kept getting in the way.

Can you quote where it refers to the unborn explicitly?

All I could find was l, "The Convention defines a child as any human being under the age of eighteen, unless the age of majority is attained earlier under a state's own domestic legislation."

Source

alaimacerc · 02-08-2015 9:30pm

SW wrote: »

Can you quote where it refers to the unborn explicitly?

All I could find was l, "The Convention defines a child as any human being under the age of eighteen, unless the age of majority is attained earlier under a state's own domestic legislation."

Source

2S is thinking (I think!) of the Declaration, which includes "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".

i.e., not what was being asserted at all, to wit "full human rights".

alaimacerc · 02-08-2015 9:31pm

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, should that 150 cells be given the same rights as the woman who is hosting them? As per the eighth amendment?

Eighth amendment doesn't give the same rights to the newly-implanted embryo -- just one, "equal" right (i.e. "to life").

Several posters here have repeatedly claimed it must, somehow, have assorted other rights too. But that's expressly not true in some cases (like the right to citizenship, and the various other rights that flow from that). And it seems unlikely in others, like bodily integrity, where the courts have gone out of their way not to infer such rights. If they existed it would greatly simplify the otherwise tortured logic necessary to render the judgements eventually made.

alaimacerc · 02-08-2015 10:13pm

Absolam wrote: »

There is a Constitutional basis for it though; the right to life of the unborn is clearly enumerated as a personal right. And since all law derives authority from the Constitution, I think it's fair to say there is a perfectly legal basis for foetal personhood.

Personhood, that was deliberately omitted from explicit mention in the wording in the text, and has never been inferred by any court judgement, or placed in any legislation, follows from the heading? It's a theory, I suppose. I think it's entirely feasible, even if you insist this is a legally meaningful and material piece of categorisation that, like the "enumerated personal right" relating to titles of nobility, it relates to circumscription thereof. Which is, after all, the effect and the intent.

But this unusually bold claim can't help but give me flashbacks to past merry-go-rounds:

Absolam wrote: »

I would certainly agree that it seems to be reasonably unlikely that personhood exists in the early weeks/months of development. I would not care to offer an opinion on when exactly that circumstance changes though.

I think picture-in-picture Absolam was somewhat wiser (and more characteristically cautious -- to the point of being vexingly vague) on this point.

Two Sheds · 02-08-2015 11:49pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

2S is thinking (I think!) of the Declaration, which includes "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".

i.e., not what was being asserted at all, to wit "full human rights".

If a child needs legal protection, he is therefore a human person and therefore possesses fundamental human rights. It's simple logic.

On the other hand we had the nonsensical situation of the head of the UN Human Rights Committee denying that the unborn is a human being.. a child but not a human being.

“the recognition of the primary right to life of the woman who is an existent human being has to prevail over that of the unborn child"

When a man in such a responsible position obviously believes in the power of fairy dust and such, then we should feel free to dismiss anything he produces by way of a report.

Kev W · 02-08-2015 11:57pm

Two Sheds wrote: »

If a child needs legal protection, he is therefore a human person and therefore possesses fundamental human rights. It's simple logic.

Animals have legal protection, as does property. By your simple logic there's very little that can be said not to be a human person.

Two Sheds · 03-08-2015 12:01am

Kev W wrote: »

Animals have legal protection, as does property. By your simple logic there's very little that can be said not to be a human person.

The context is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Like the head of the UN Committee you would need to argue that a child is not a human being. Is that what you're saying?

Kev W · 03-08-2015 12:04am

Two Sheds wrote: »

The context is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Like the head of the UN Committee you would need to argue that a child is not a human being. Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that being afforded protection under the law does not in itself make one human, as you claimed.

Delirium · 03-08-2015 12:10am

Two Sheds wrote: »

The context is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Like the head of the UN Committee you would need to argue that a child is not a human being. Is that what you're saying?

where in the convention does it state that the definition of a child also encompasses the unborn?

Two Sheds · 03-08-2015 12:13am

Kev W wrote: »

I'm saying that being afforded protection under the law does not in itself make one human, as you claimed.

I would hope it's not necessary to repeat every syllable of previous posts in order to understand the context of a post.

Since the Convention states - "before as well as after birth", then in order to deny the humanity of the unborn it is necessary to deny the humanity of the born.

It shows the nonsense of the UN Human Rights Committee Report, which was endorsed by the likes of the ICCL.

Two Sheds · 03-08-2015 12:17am

SW wrote: »

where in the convention does it state that the definition of a child also encompasses the unborn?

"the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth"

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
I'd say that's fairly unambiguous.

Delirium · 03-08-2015 12:21am

Two Sheds wrote: »

I would hope it's not necessary to repeat every syllable of previous posts in order to understand the context of a post.

Since the Convention states - "before as well as after birth", then in order to deny the humanity of the unborn it is necessary to deny the humanity of the born.

It shows the nonsense of the UN Human Rights Committee Report, which was endorsed by the likes of the ICCL.

However, neither the 1924 Geneva Declaration nor the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child define when childhood starts and ends, mainly to avoid taking a stand on abortion.

Nonetheless, the Preamble to the Declaration of the Rights of the Child highlights children’s need for special care and protection, “including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

Source

EDIT: would seem it contradicts what you claimed.

Two Sheds · 03-08-2015 12:30am

SW wrote: »

Source

EDIT: would seem it contradicts what you claimed.

Not in the slightest.

The preamble doesn't say when childhood begins but it does categorically state that it has begun before birth.
It definitely states that a child exists before birth.

To support abortion is to ignore the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and any abortion legislation should define when childhood begins. Otherwise, the best that can be said is that there is a disregard for the rights of the child.

Delirium · 03-08-2015 12:34am

Two Sheds wrote: »

Not in the slightest.

The preamble doesn't say when childhood begins but it does categorically state that it has begun before birth.
It definitely states that a child exists before birth.

To support abortion is to ignore the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and any abortion legislation should define when childhood begins. Otherwise, the best that can be said is that there is a disregard for the rights of the child.

Eh, no. The preamble isn't part of the Convention, it's the preamble. So we've established the Convention doesn't include the unborn as part of the definition of a child.

alaimacerc · 03-08-2015 12:40am

Two Sheds wrote: »

I would hope it's not necessary to repeat every syllable of previous posts in order to understand the context of a post.

Apparently it is, because (as I've already repeated once already!), the proposition was "a human being in receipt of full human rights". The UNCRC and the Irish constitution expressly make it clear that's not the case. Having agreed this is wrong, we can continue to haggle about precisely how wrong it is, if you insist.

Two Sheds · 03-08-2015 12:42am

SW wrote: »

Eh, no. The preamble isn't part of the Convention, it's the preamble. So we've established the Convention doesn't include the unborn as part of the definition of a child.

If you choose to ignore the Preamble then everything that follows can be safely disregarded, since the entire Preamble is -

The States Parties to the present Convention,....Have agreed as follows:

Not only is the Preamble part of the Convention, it's a critical part of the Convention.

Absolam · 03-08-2015 6:06am

alaimacerc wrote: »

Personhood, that was deliberately omitted from explicit mention in the wording in the text, and has never been inferred by any court judgement, or placed in any legislation, follows from the heading? It's a theory, I suppose. I think it's entirely feasible, even if you insist this is a legally meaningful and material piece of categorisation that, like the "enumerated personal right" relating to titles of nobility, it relates to circumscription thereof. Which is, after all, the effect and the intent.

That's more than a little overwrought, but comes close enough to the point (though rather than circumscribing the State or citizen's facility, it places upon the State an obligation, so maybe not too close). As to whether personhood has ever been inferred in a Court judgement, I'd look to Hederman's summation in the X Case which stated "Direct State interference in the developing unborn life is outlawed and furthermore the State must protect and promote that life and above all defend it from unlawful interference by other persons." (my bold) which certainly does infer that the unborn is a person.
(And given recent debates on the thread, it's worth noting Hederman was also happy to allow that an unborn child is a human being:"The extinction of unborn life is not confined to the sphere of private life of the mother or family because the unborn life is an autonomous human being protected by the Constitution.")
Hederman reiterated the notion later when addressing suicidality saying "There could be no question whatsoever of permitting another life to be taken to deal with the situation even if the intent to self-destruct could be traced directly to the activities or the existence of another person." (again, my bold).
Egan J also infers that the unborn is a person in his summation; "The right to life of one person (as in Shaw's case) was held to be superior to the right to liberty of another but, quite clearly, the right to life might not be the paramount right in every circumstances."

As for legislation, I don't think there has really been any need to place it in legislation so far? The POLDPA manages well enough without it, and that's really the only legislation born out of the Amendment.

alaimacerc wrote: »

But this unusually bold claim can't help but give me flashbacks to past merry-go-rounds: I think picture-in-picture Absolam was somewhat wiser (and more characteristically cautious -- to the point of being vexingly vague) on this point.

I would draw a substantial distinction (as would most posters here) between what I can see is evident in the Constitution, and what I believe is reasonable. Though to qualify my characteristically cautious opinion I would add that where there is reasonable doubt, erring on the side of caution (which is to say not killing someone) seems the best course of action.

robdonn · 03-08-2015 9:14am

Two Sheds wrote: »

If you choose to ignore the Preamble then everything that follows can be safely disregarded, since the entire Preamble is -

Not only is the Preamble part of the Convention, it's a critical part of the Convention.

The preamble of an international agreement sets out the context in which the agreement was negotiated and concluded. Under general rules of treaty interpretation the preamble is not considered to be part of the legally binding or “operative” text of the agreement. Instead the preamble forms part of the “context” in which the agreement's obligations must be interpreted. It often recalls and refers to any related international agreements that may have provided the mandate for the negotiations or that the negotiators felt were in other ways relevant to the agreement. In practice, negotiators will also often include in the preamble references to principles or concepts that are relevant to the international agreement, but that proved too controversial to be included as binding obligations in the operative text.

Source

Peregrinus · 03-08-2015 9:27am

That's not inconsistent, though, with the treating being part of the Convention. It's not an operative part, in the sense that it doesn't contain any provisions that say "the parties must do X" or "the parties may not do Y" or "if Z happens, the following consequences ensue". It is nevertheless a part of the treaty; it's the part where the parties explain the background to the treaty, their reasons for entering into it, the outcomes they hope for, etc, etc, and that does make it very relevant when it comes to interpreting and applying the operative parts.

So, in this case use the terms "child" and "childhood" without defining them. Is there any indication at all as to what those terms mean, when used in the Treaty? Well, yes, there is; that's what the preamble is for. Like it or not, the fact that the Convention preamble speaks of the child "needing special safeguards and care . . . before as well as after birth" does pretty well torpedo below the waterline any argument that "child", as far as the Convention is concerned, only refers to children who have been born. Not only is the term capable of including unborn children, but the desire to safeguard the child before birth as well as after is explicitly part of the rationale for the Convention.

Besides, in the operative provisions it states in Art. 1 that the convention rights are to be ensured to the child without regard to the child's birth status. And the rights to be registered and to have a name are explicitly stated in Art. 7 to protected only after birth, which at least raises the possibility of an argument that the other rights are not intended to be limited in that way.

robdonn · 03-08-2015 9:47am

Negotiating History of the Convention Addressing Abortion

The negotiating history of CRC’s drafting leads many to conclude that the Convention is “abortion neutral.” During negotiations on the treaty text, the issue of abortion and where life begins was debated among U.N. member states. Ultimately, in the interest of compromise and to allow for the maximum number of ratifications, CRC drafters agreed to not address the issue in the main articles of the Convention. The intent was to leave the text purposefully vague so that ratifying countries could interpret the provisions to align with their own domestic law and policies on abortion. For example, the Convention’s definition of a child as “every human being below the age of eighteen years” intentionally does not set a lower age limit, leaving the States Parties to determine where life begins. This intentional ambiguity allows countries to apply their own interpretations to other provisions that address children’s rights, particularly Article 6, which recognizes that “every child has the inherent right to life,” and states that States Parties shall ensure “to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.” Nevertheless, some States Parties to CRC, including China, France, Luxembourg, and Tunisia, attached reservations to CRC stating that Article 6 should not interfere with national legislation and policies regarding abortion.

The preamble of CRC has also raised some questions regarding the Convention’s position on abortion. It specifically mentions the needs of the child before birth, stating “the child ... needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” Some maintain that this statement implies that CRC protects the rights of the so-called “unborn,” which could require States Parties to outlaw abortion. Though the preamble is not an operational paragraph of the Convention, some experts emphasize that under international law the preamble to a treaty could be relevant to its interpretation. Others contend, however, that preambular statements do not carry the same force as articles of the Convention. The legislative history of CRC indicates that the drafters did not intend for the preambular sentence to protect the rights of children before birth. That sentence, which was originally included in the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, was reportedly included as a compromise during negotiations on Article 1 that sought to define a “child.” CRC drafters were concerned that it could be interpreted as protecting the rights of the “unborn,” and in the official record of the negotiation included a statement clarifying that the preambular paragraph did not intend to prejudice States Parties’ interpretation of Article 1 on the definition of a child or any other CRC provisions.

Source

Absolam · 03-08-2015 10:11am

robdonn wrote: »

The intent was to leave the text purposefully vague so that ratifying countries could interpret the provisions to align with their own domestic law and policies on abortion.
The legislative history of CRC indicates that the drafters did not intend for the preambular sentence to protect the rights of children before birth. That sentence, which was originally included in the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, was reportedly included as a compromise during negotiations on Article 1 that sought to define a “child.” CRC drafters were concerned that it could be interpreted as protecting the rights of the “unborn,” and in the official record of the negotiation included a statement clarifying that the preambular paragraph did not intend to prejudice States Parties’ interpretation of Article 1 on the definition of a child or any other CRC provisions.

That leaves Two Sheds assertion

Two Sheds wrote: »

the Convention states - "before as well as after birth",

entirely intact; the statement is present, regardless of how a nation interprets the provisions. Whether or not the preamble was intended to protect unborn children (and I don't think it was), it specifically defines unborn children as children, even though it does not oblige any State to do the same.

robdonn · 03-08-2015 10:39am

Absolam wrote: »

That leaves Two Sheds assertion
entirely intact; the statement is present, regardless of how a nation interprets the provisions. Whether or not the preamble was intended to protect unborn children (and I don't think it was), it specifically defines unborn children as children, even though it does not oblige any State to do the same.

That is true, although his actual assertion of:

Two Sheds wrote:

Since the Convention states - "before as well as after birth", then in order to deny the humanity of the unborn it is necessary to deny the humanity of the born.

completely relies on the States' interpretation.

... in the official record of the negotiation included a statement clarifying that the preambular paragraph did not intend to prejudice States Parties’ interpretation of Article 1 on the definition of a child or any other CRC provisions.

This is clearly shown that the preambular text is not to be used as a definition of a child but can simply be used as the scope to which the Convention can cover should the State choose to do so.

Absolam · 03-08-2015 11:05am

robdonn wrote: »

That is true, although his actual assertion of: completely relies on the States' interpretation.

Actually I'd say that's entirely a matter of personal extrapolation; this portion of the preamble makes no statement about humanity, only about childhood.

robdonn wrote: »

This is clearly shown that the preambular text is not to be used as a definition of a child but can simply be used as the scope to which the Convention can cover should the State choose to do so.

It does clearly show that the preambular text agrees that an unborn child is a child; and that there is no requirement for States to accept that conclusion. However, anything that begins with "history indicates" and moves onto "intend" is an obvious opinion, not a statement of factual finding.

Peregrinus · 03-08-2015 11:17am

robdonn wrote: »

This is clearly shown that the preambular text is not to be used as a definition of a child but can simply be used as the scope to which the Convention can cover should the State choose to do so.

Well, no. The statement that your (extremely useful) link takes us to is a statement of the Working Group that drafted the Convention. But what the Convention means depends on the intention of the parties - the states that sign and ratify the convention - rather than the drafters.

I think the correct position is as set out in the linked article - the language of the convention represents a compromise. It falls short of defining "child" as explicitly including the unborn (presumably if they had done that some states would not have signed or ratified the Convention) but it includes language which can be used to support that interpretation (since presumably if they had omitted it some other states would have refused to sign or ratify).

The giveaway is the explicit provisions in the operative section which provide that certain rights don't accrue until birth. That language wouldn't be necessary if, in fact, there was no case for saying that child includes the unborn. The Convention is deliberately ambiguous on this point, except with respect to the right to a name and to nationality.

robdonn · 03-08-2015 11:21am

Absolam wrote: »

Actually I'd say that's entirely a matter of personal extrapolation; this portion of the preamble makes no statement about humanity, only about childhood.

Agreed, although childhood assumes humanity presumably.

Absolam wrote: »

It does clearly show that the preambular text agrees that an unborn child is a child; and that there is no requirement for States to accept that conclusion. However, anything that begins with "history indicates" and moves onto "intend" is an obvious opinion, not a statement of factual finding.

Well, it shows that the preambular text agrees that an unborn child can be a child, depending on the interpretation of the state, but actually makes no inclusion of that in the official definition.

robdonn · 03-08-2015 11:35am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, no. The statement that your (extremely useful) link takes us to is a statement of the Working Group that drafted the Convention. But what the Convention means depends on the intention of the parties - the states that sign and ratify the convention - rather than the drafters.

I think the correct position is as set out in the linked article - the language of the convention represents a compromise. It falls short of defining "child" as explicitly including the unborn (presumably if they had done that some states would not have signed or ratified the Convention) but it includes language which can be used to support that interpretation (since presumably if they had omitted it some other states would have refused to sign or ratify).

The giveaway is the explicit provisions in the operative section which provide that certain rights don't accrue until birth. That language wouldn't be necessary if, in fact, there was no case for saying that child includes the unborn. The Convention is deliberately ambiguous on this point, except with respect to the right to a name and to nationality.

Perhaps my statement was a bit too declarative.

But would I perhaps be correct to assume that, due to the ambiguity of this point, that the Convention by itself cannot be used to infer rights to the unborn without a State's existing laws extending the definition of child to them?

---

As an aside, can I just thank you guys for existing? :P My partner often gives out to more for engaging in "pointless online arguments" but I love them! Without these kind of conversations, which don't really pop up in my daily life, I don't really get to learn about stuff such as UN Conventions and medical definitions. Having these debates/discussions encourages me to learn about things that I never would have thought were this interesting.

Abortion Discussion

Comments