Abortion Discussion

Absolam wrote: »

Or, and I'm just throwing it out there, we have got to get around to accepting that there is a distinct difference between the lifestyle of the existing live person, and the life of a prospective live person.

That is of course, just to help you out at, a la Victor Borga, with some audible punctuation, a live entity that's prospectively a person, rather than any other way that might be bracketed.

It's this failure to do so that is behind this debate, the vision of a lifestyle is what some are afraid of losing by allowing children the opportunity to be born.

Or rather, compelling pregnant women to "allow" "the unborn" the opportunity to become "children" in the .

Yes, "lifestyle choices" up to and including "going blind" vs "not going blind", or even simply "feeling able to cope" and "not". Clearly the sort of "lifestyle choice" the criminal law needs to be making for (actual) people.

Piles are a nice lifestyle side effect of pregnancy.

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, you said that I said the Constitution was irrelevant to RCCs, when I didn't say that at all. Anyway, i find your assertion that the Legislature and Courts are 'overwhelmingly Catholic by religion' quite entertaining. Would you like to explain it?
Well, I didn't say it, you did. Does that mean you have to 'STFU'?

That is strange. When I say marbles, I don't mean all marbles. When I say fruit cakes, I don't mean all fruit cakes. So unless there is a peculiar rule for the word Muslim, I don't think your assertion holds water.
it doesn't appear to improve with repetition?

But you ascribe certain points of view or beliefs to groups of people you identify by their group name, "Muslims", for instance, as you have said here:

I doubt it's troubling their minds; if they believe it they believe it. Just as Muslims believe sharia law transcends civil law. Neither is amenable to debate, so what's the point?

So, which Muslims believe this?

You can tell me, I won't be offended, either way

and, when you say:

Surely from an RCC point of view the Constitution is irrelevant anyway since civil law does not rise to the level of canon law?

Which RCC point of view is that, can you define the RCC you are referring to as having such a POV.

It should be easy, as you said those things, but want to avoid actually explaining to whom you are referring in either statement.

Anyway, i find your assertion that the Legislature and Courts are 'overwhelmingly Catholic by religion' quite entertaining.

Perhaps I should have said that the Irish Legislature and Judiciary are, predominantly, sociologically and culturally Catholic, products of an overwhelmingly Catholic Irish Society, and an Irish Catholic Education system.

Would I be wrong there?

As for inanimate objects such as marbles and fruit loafs being used as comparators with Human Sociological, Ethnic, or Religious groups......

well, I just don't know at this stage which of us is the fruit loaf, and which has lost his marbles.

Good night a chara, perhaps we are both both??

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-td-backs-colleague-s-call-for-abortion-referendum-1.1912286

alaimacerc wrote: »

That is of course, just to help you out at, a la Victor Borga, with some audible punctuation, a live entity that's prospectively a person, rather than any other way that might be bracketed.

Though such a construction might be considered an opinion, rather than a fact.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, "lifestyle choices" up to and including "going blind" vs "not going blind", or even simply "feeling able to cope" and "not". Clearly the sort of "lifestyle choice" the criminal law needs to be making for (actual) people.

All of which seem to be substantially less fatal than death.....so as lifestyle choices go, comparatively low impact?

irishpancake wrote: »

But you ascribe certain points of view or beliefs to groups of people you identify by their group name, "Muslims", for instance, as you have said here:
So, which Muslims believe this? )

Well going by wikislam, a substantial number of Muslims in Turkey would believe this?
"The results of a survey released in November of 2009 found a massive 67 percent of Turks said 'they would continue acting in accordance with their religious beliefs if the Parliament passed a law that contradicted religious laws.' and only 'Twenty-six percent said they would obey the country’s law in this case'. As is evident; even in 'moderate' 'secular' nations like Turkey, we find that the majority of its population (in accordance with Sahih Bukhari 9:89:258) refuse to accept the authority of its government when they deem its man-made laws contrary to that which is prescribed in the Shari'ah."

irishpancake wrote: »

Which RCC point of view is that, can you define the RCC you are referring to as having such a POV. )

When I referred to the RCC I referred the Church itself, being the Holy See. Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, "...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial.
So the Church itself places a Priests obligation under Canon Law above his obligation under Civil Law.

irishpancake wrote: »

It should be easy, as you said those things, but want to avoid actually explaining to whom you are referring in either statement.)

it is quite easy; you just needed to stop telling me what my answers were.

irishpancake wrote: »

Perhaps I should have said that the Irish Legislature and Judiciary are, predominantly, sociologically and culturally Catholic, products of an overwhelmingly Catholic Irish Society, and an Irish Catholic Education system.
Would I be wrong there?)

i think you would be doing a great disservice to the debt owed to British law and jurisprudence, as well as the substantial number of Protestant members of the bar who have illuminated the Irish legislature and judiciary.

Absolam wrote: »

i suppose you could read it that way if you tried. But I don't think anyone has been advocating extending the prohibition on abortion to a prohibition on contraception, despite the fact that both do indeed share a commonality in that they prevent people being born. No one is advocating forced artificial insemination either, despite the fact that the lack of such a program prevents people being born. I guess people just tend to draw a line somewhere along that scale....

No, very few people would advocate banning contraception or forced insemination, yet the arguments often used to oppose abortion are the same arguments that would justify these unacceptable practices. Inconsistent, isn't it?

I suppose that in general, it appears that being alive is preferable to being dead, even when it means being alive in dreadful circumstances.

I disagree. This is the "life at all costs" mindset of the RCC.

Based on this one would have to assume that you would be opposed to turning off the life support machine of someone in a coma, say in a permanent vegetative state. It's a pretty extreme position.

SmilingLurker wrote: »

Convince me why a foetus in the first trimester has a right to life?

Convince me why a foetus in the first second after the first trimester has a right to life?

MrPudding wrote: »

Convince we why a person one day short of their 18th birthday can't vote and a mere one day later they can? Or why one day they can't drink alcohol and the next they can.

Why is anything not allowed one day and allowed the next? A line has to be drawn somewhere for most things.

MrP

Yeah exactly. So anyone who rubbishes someone else's view for saying the line is drawn a bit earlier than they think and can't rationalise it is idiotic.

Here's how I see it.

There are certain milestones:

1. Conception. All the genetic code there.
2. Heart
3. Early enough to have a c section and possibly survive with the help of science
4. Labour begins
5. Birth
6. Crawling
7.
8. Out of nappies
...
53. Posting on boards.ie about something irrelevant,

These are all stages of life.

I don't see how anyone can objectively say to end it all at one stage is 100% fair and another stage 100% is unfair. It comes down to your believes.

Who cares that at a certain stage the baby needs the Mother's womb? Science has changed that and could change it again.

The fertilised egg doesn't even need the mother's womb it could enter a surrogate's womb.

My opinions have changed on this subject. It's not black or white. When you think about it, a little baby is so defenceless and is only born at nine months because evolutionary if it was born later, the women's hips would need to be wider and for that to happen we would still be on all fours as a species. We are unique in that are babies are born with so much need.

The need of a baby outside the womb is actually greater than the baby inside the womb. So the argument of it not really being a life because it has a need of the mother's womb isn't really a good one for me.

Furthermore, when you see the heartbreak so many couples have because they can't conceive I kinda of get a bit sick when you hear people being so blase about abortion.

The reason why we don't adopt more is because of the social stigma associated with it being pregnant and giving the baby up. But surely, that's a great thing to do. Give another family so much happiness and an accident a chance of a real meaningful life. Would we not be a much healthier society if we tried to help out one another more?

It is not the job of women with unwanted pregnancies to be brood mares for the childless. If a woman freely chooses to offer her child for adoption that's one thing but denying all women the option of abortion because some couples can't conceive is barbaric. Also married women cannot legally offer their children for adoption in Ireland.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My opinions have changed on this subject. It's not black or white.

This is the real truth, and I too have changed my opinions too over the years. As abortion has been discussed, as my understanding of it has developed so too have my opinions.

However many people in Ireland don't realise how much the national position on abortion has been unfairly monopolised by a fairly extreme minority. As a result (IMO anyway) many Irish people seem to start with a default position of "abortion should be allowed only in really exceptional circumstances such as FFA and rape, but not on demand" despite the fact that most Irish women travelling for abortions are doing so for an "on demand" abortion.

I think that focusing on rape and FFA misses a bigger point - that many women really really don't want to continue with a crisis pregnancy, and it's nothing to do with risk to life or with foetal abnormalities. They will go to great lengths to get an abortion regardless of the law, and this fact is often minimised or denied.

There is a lot of cultural baggage in the Irish attitude to women. Anyone who thinks a woman's autonomy over her own body can be removed if she is pregnant is (IMO, again) reflecting an old-fashioned view of women as important primarily as producers of babies. There is a lot of "moral" judging going on too - many people seem to think that a woman must only be allowed an abortion for "the right reasons", which again shows a bizarre distrust of women, and seeks to prevent them acting in their own best interests.

And to add I strongly suspect the reason for a lack of consistency around anomaly scans in maternity units is so FFA aren't diagnosed and women won't demand services they currently have no option but to travel for. Yet another way in which women don't have control over their pregnancies.

MrPudding wrote: »

We were specifically told this was the case by an English midwife working in the Coomb when my partner was expecting or second child. Our first was born in NI and there were scans every couple of weeks. We come to Dublin and I think it was two scans in total, we were confused.

MrP

I know of couples who paid for anomaly scans privately as they were offered no scans at all during pregnancy, which is an utter disgrace. I also know of women who's requests for scans was met with a 'Well what would you do about it anyway if there was a problem' attitude, the implication being that they were being awkward for asking for the scan as in Ireland the only option is to continue the pregnancy.