Abortion

The Corinthian · 09-03-2015 5:09pm

Torakx wrote: »

Therefore if pushed to a choice, I choose complete freedom of all things to act as they wish. However, there is also the issue of taking responsibility for your actions.

So in a society where the individual right trumps all, you don't mind if I beat you up, take your wallet and leave you in a pool of your own blood? I'll take 'responsibility', but given this is permissible by the code of morality you've proffered, I can live with that meaningless burden.

Do unto others etc.

Nope. That's not what it is. It's do what you want, there was no mention of limiting this on the basis of what you would expect done to you.

I let karma or evolution take care of most things.

So survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism without restraint. As for Karma, nice idea but it doesn't exist.

I suppose I must be amoral.

Amoral does not mean foolish. In a completely anarchic society where anything goes, you ironically have less freedom than in one where some of your freedoms are restricted. You would likely not be able to go out, unless well armed and with back up for a start. Your home would likely need to be a fortress. The simplest social interaction would resemble a stand-off from a Sergio Leone movie.

That's the paradox of hyper-individualism.

K4t · 09-03-2015 5:10pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

The language is called English. Nice try at playing the misogyny card, BTW.

I don't think you dislike or hate women, but you cannot deny that you have no problem controlling them and their bodies. You have said as much in your whole argument concerning individual v collective rights and the greater good. My argument is that there is never a need to control women, and that by not controlling them, the world will not suddenly fall apart or head down the road of extinction. Men and women are naturally attracted to each other, women are willing to consent to sex, and are willing to have children. There's no need for the control over them!

Actually, I can't really comprehend hyper-individualism to the level that individual right is more important than the right of the species to survive.

So the scenario with one woman and ten men left on earth, you would think it right that one or more of those men rape the woman to continue the species, if they could not convince her to have consensual sex? Or do you think the woman would automatically be willing to have sex? Which if that is the case, then my argument is proved right that humanity will continue on regardless of whether a woman is free to have an abortion at any time, and your argument is based solely on your opinion of what is right and wrong, and one which you would happily force on women, whether in my hypothetical scenario or in everyday life.

The Corinthian · 09-03-2015 5:21pm

K4t wrote: »

I don't think you dislike or hate women, but you cannot deny that you have no problem controlling them and their bodies.

Ahh... when all else fails attack the poster not the post.

Sorry, I haven't been talking about women at all for a few pages now. I've been talking about a larger moral question which you inadvertently brought up and you've been trying to backtrack from ever since. So nice try, but no cigar.

My argument is that there is never a need to control women, and that by not controlling them, the world will not suddenly fall apart or head down the road of extinction.

You specifically gave an example where by not controlling women, the world will would head down the road of extinction and I am responding to that and that alone. You're frankly being dishonest here at this stage.

So the scenario with one woman and ten men left on earth, you would think it right that one or more of those men rape the woman to continue the species, if they could not convince her to have consensual sex?

For a start, if there is only one woman left, the species is already doomed as the gene pool is too small.

But if you had a situation where without enforced reproduction the species would die then yes a case can be made that it is moral on balance. In the same way, if we had a situation where if we did not kill off a proportion of the population otherwise everyone would die, then yes also.

It's a utilitarian judgment and (if you can get your head around this) has absolutely nothing to do with gender or women's rights.

But it is dependent on the extreme case you gave, one where humanity faces extinction, so to suggest that because one can accept individual rights being superseded by the greater good in one, doesn't imply that individual rights can always be superseded elsewhere; that would be a juvenile deduction.

K4t · 09-03-2015 5:34pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

But if you had a situation where without enforced reproduction the species would die then yes a case can be made that it is moral on balance. .

Nothing more need be said. Goodbye.

The Corinthian · 09-03-2015 5:37pm

K4t wrote: »

Nothing more need be said. Goodbye.

For legs good, two legs bad, right?

Torakx · 09-03-2015 7:24pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So in a society where the individual right trumps all, you don't mind if I beat you up, take your wallet and leave you in a pool of your own blood? I'll take 'responsibility', but given this is permissible by the code of morality you've proffered, I can live with that meaningless burden.

Nope. That's not what it is. It's do what you want, there was no mention of limiting this on the basis of what you would expect done to you.

So survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism without restraint. As for Karma, nice idea but it doesn't exist.

Amoral does not mean foolish. In a completely anarchic society where anything goes, you ironically have less freedom than in one where some of your freedoms are restricted. You would likely not be able to go out, unless well armed and with back up for a start. Your home would likely need to be a fortress. The simplest social interaction would resemble a stand-off from a Sergio Leone movie.

That's the paradox of hyper-individualism.

I like your replies, they are interesting to consider.

On the first part, I don't mind being beaten up and i have been attacked without any reasonable provocation. And I didn't mind too much afterwards. But remember also if you are allowed to attack someone, they may kill you instead. it goes both ways. Maybe the local community would hang you for a senseless killing. Or a family member would look for revenge(or just local police arrest you and you go to trial). That is karma to me, I know I use it a bit loosely.
But I do see that the people who reach for violence are much more likely to recieve it and usually have in the past as well.
In an anarchy based society, it does not mean there would be no order or social justice. There are a few different views on what anarchism means, in terms of politics and social structures.
You automatically jump to a premise that all people or a majority will turn violent without an authority figure with an iron fist(economical fist even).

I personally am a bit more optomistic for the human spirit.
I think people might also pull together and create new support networks.

But this is starting to slide away from the main topic via individual rights versus group rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
That is what i meant when writing "do unto others".
I think i learned this from my bible study years ago, but may have been wrong. The idea is clear enough though.

I'm not sure what you mean by foolish and amoral. I don't think it is foolish.
I think it is actually sensible. Because morals are a human thing and to a great deal a controlling mechanism for the mind and decision making.

oldozer · 11-03-2015 1:41pm

Liesannenl wrote: »

Hi there!

I'm Liesanne and I'm from the Netherlands. I'd like to ask you a few questions about Abortion. Like I already said I'm from the Netherlands, where abortion is generally accepted. But when I'm reading the news about Ireland and abortion it's rather the opposite. So the reason why I opened this thread, is because I wonder where this comes from. Why is abortion still illegal in most of the cases? I wonder what you think of abortion and what do you think should be the law in Ireland of abortion?

Sincerely,

Liesanne

This is the original post of the OP...........

What I would like to know from the OP.

What have you learned from the answers you have seen here ?

Would the Op like to say what they have learned from the various replies ?

Forgive me if I missed some of the replies on behalf of the OP. I may also have thought of this thread becoming something other than that which the OP first enquired of.

My thoughts on Abortion..........No.

Life is a gift. Mankind was created to protect life. We just learned to like how we can kill life. Now we have to learn how to live with the justification.

Our reasons thus far.............Christianity and some old fashioned moral structure. Maybe even stupidity.

Torakx · 11-03-2015 3:17pm

Caramelporter wrote: »

It's interesting that some people think we supposedly should have the right to control our own bodies yet they also think they have the right to control the body of a surgeon by forcing them to perform an abortion.

If I want to have my liver removed should I be allowed to demand that a surgeon removes it?

If not do I not have control over my own body?

The surgeon should have as many rights as the patient no?
In this case the patient would go to a surgeon or someone who could and would perform the pocedure.

The Corinthian · 11-03-2015 4:47pm

Torakx wrote: »

In an anarchy based society, it does not mean there would be no order or social justice. There are a few different views on what anarchism means, in terms of politics and social structures.

Well, any order or social justice would be coincidental. And temporary.

You automatically jump to a premise that all people or a majority will turn violent without an authority figure with an iron fist(economical fist even).

You don't need a majority to turn to violence to turn a society into Hell. Just a few will suffice.

I personally am a bit more optomistic for the human spirit.

You're right, it's never worked out without bloodshed and violence anywhere else in history, so a first time is long overdue - right?

I think people might also pull together and create new support networks.

You mean turn away from anarchy back to a system where individual rights are limited for the good of the group?

But this is starting to slide away from the main topic via individual rights versus group rights.

The main topic was Irish attitudes to abortion, if I remember correctly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
That is what i meant when writing "do unto others".
I think i learned this from my bible study years ago, but may have been wrong. The idea is clear enough though.

That's a very wide topic and not so clear cut. The consequences of "doing onto others" (or not doing, for that matter) are not always evident for example.

I'm not sure what you mean by foolish and amoral. I don't think it is foolish.
I think it is actually sensible. Because morals are a human thing and to a great deal a controlling mechanism for the mind and decision making.

Even if one is amoral, that does not mean that one does not see the value in morality - Machiavellianism being a prime example of this. The anarchic 'utopia' you've suggested is anything but, it simply would result in a worse situation for the vast majority and after a period of chaos and bloodshed ironically return back to the ordered system that is sought to escape.

Ultimately, unless you want to live in a cave in the mountains as a hermit, society requires that those living in it compromise to coexist. That means individual rights are sacrificed for the greater good.

The Corinthian · 11-03-2015 4:49pm

Caramelporter wrote: »

If I want to have my liver removed should I be allowed to demand that a surgeon removes it?

If a surgeon refuses to operate on someone on the basis of race, is that acceptable?

Torakx · 11-03-2015 5:52pm

Caramelporter wrote: »

If it is deemed illegal for me to have my liver removed, do I have control over my body?

You have the option to obey the law or not.
In this particular case I would abstain, because my liver is just fine for now as it is.
The morality or question of whether that is good or bad, I think is subjective.
But if you obey that law for the laws sake, then you are a complicit slave to it.
If it was so black and white though, I could say that it is also ok to let an insane person torture themselves, if that was their wish. But I don't think i could. Maybe my weakness, maybe my ideas are not absolute.
But I use my own judgement to decide subjectively which I prefer and if I was insane and wanted to torture myself, I would probably spout the same thing, while running away wth my torture equipment, shouting " gotta catch me first!".

Torakx · 11-03-2015 6:33pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, any order or social justice would be coincidental. And temporary.

That would be a preference for me I think, at least until the stage where we learn to govern ourselves better.
In an anarchy based society, things would be broken down and improved on regularly.
It's my view that we haven't spent enough time working on our foundations, with regard economics for example, or politics.
It looks to me like this lack of attention and re-iteration has caused a lot of issues globally.

You don't need a majority to turn to violence to turn a society into Hell. Just a few will suffice.

You're right, it's never worked out without bloodshed and violence anywhere else in history, so a first time is long overdue - right?

You mean turn away from anarchy back to a system where individual rights are limited for the good of the group?

We are agreed that for now violence is inevitable in some form.

I didn't say change would be easy from such an inflexible raised up tower of a system of thinking and acting.
Faster iterations I think would make for smoother sailing. But at the same time, this extended period we have been on with the current forms of governing, has taught us many a lesson. I see it as a large and dangerous leap the further we go with the current models for control.

Control is the key here.
The level of control of individual lives in an anarchy based system, would be as minimal as possible. But still required I think. Like a police force made of individuals for their community.
But I am sure there are many interpretations of what a functioning anarchy based society would look like. It should probaly never be functioning, as the whole idea is to re-iterate and improve through breaking things down and rebuilding. As far as I have read anyway.

The main topic was Irish attitudes to abortion, if I remember correctly.

You misunderstood, I wrote via those thing. We drifted a bit when hitting on morality.
Now we are on governing systems lol

Even if one is amoral, that does not mean that one does not see the value in morality - Machiavellianism being a prime example of this. The anarchic 'utopia' you've suggested is anything but, it simply would result in a worse situation for the vast majority and after a period of chaos and bloodshed ironically return back to the ordered system that is sought to escape.

I don't know much of his theories to be honest. I am still digging my way through Nietzsche. I would guess machiavelli did not have the same idea in mind as me, but I will have to check sometime soon! Maybe he did believe in this process of re-iteration.
But as you can see from my replies above, I would expect a certain amount of turmoil with any drastic changes. It may not need to be drastic though.
Do we chop down the tree at the base and risk it landing on a house? Or do we dismantle it carefully from the top down?

Ultimately, unless you want to live in a cave in the mountains as a hermit, society requires that those living in it compromise to coexist. That means individual rights are sacrificed for the greater good.

Individual rights are sacrificed for the greater more powerful "good", maybe

At the moment It is probably illegal in Ireland to live in a cave(so i don't even have that luxury as an option, and if I don't have money or am not assigned to the corporation of Ireland, I don't get access to a house either.
There is still a dominant element or two that is directing the course of history, I think. The most rich and powerful materially we could say.
It is through culture and control of education and entertainment that society comes to believe in it's own enslavement. Or so I think is most likely the situation for now.

The Corinthian · 11-03-2015 7:45pm

Torakx wrote: »

In an anarchy based society, things would be broken down and improved on regularly.

Says who? What would motivate it? Why do you presume it would be 'improved on' regularly? If this is just your personal opinion and you've nothing to back it up, fair enough, but I will basically dismiss it as wishful thinking then.

We are agreed that for now violence is inevitable in some form.

Sure. It's part of the human condition unfortunately. However we do strive to create a society where violence is limited, not given free reign.

Faster iterations I think would make for smoother sailing.

Wishful thinking or do you have something to back that up?

The level of control of individual lives in an anarchy based system, would be as minimal as possible. But still required I think. Like a police force made of individuals for their community.

So you do accept that people's personal freedoms must be sacrificed for the greater good, after all? After all, what need is there for any police force except to enforce.

But I am sure there are many interpretations of what a functioning anarchy based society would look like.

It might be an idea if you research the topic first before throwing your support behind it.

I don't know much of his theories to be honest. I am still digging my way through Nietzsche. I would guess machiavelli did not have the same idea in mind as me, but I will have to check sometime soon! Maybe he did believe in this process of re-iteration.

I brought him up in relation to morality and being amoral - you can still be the latter and believe in the former.

It may not need to be drastic though.

More wishful thinking?

And that's really what my opinion of your arguments comes down to. You may feel you've given this a lot of thought, but you've done so apparently from a knowledge vacuum. As a result many of your presumptions amount to little more than wishful thinking, that in reality don't work that way.

It's not a bad thing that you're asking these questions, of course, but I suspect that you've some way to go before you can come out with educated answers.

Torakx · 11-03-2015 9:36pm

There is a fairly good lecture given by noam Chomsky on what he thinks anarchy means.
It should be easy to find on youtube and I can find a link if anyone is interested.
It is a good start to seeing options and at least breaking down some of the misconceptions about it.
I don't remember if he spoke of this iteration process. I think he may have.

I agree with the latter part of your reply though
I do have much to learn. And this is very much part of that process.
My ideas are flexible and I hope they are challenged. I will take on anything that makes sense or shows an idea to be flawed.
I can be slow to decide though. Deep wells and all (see sig)

As far as anarchy based societies and me are concerned, it seems the best direction to aim for so far. Because I have a strong will towards freedom of the individual. Which of course means on the topic of abortion I would have to vote pro choice if voting.
A weak attempt at a return to topic. Maybe you can help

oldozer · 12-03-2015 1:45am

Torakx wrote: »

There is a fairly good lecture given by noam Chomsky on what he thinks anarchy means.
It should be easy to find on youtube and I can find a link if anyone is interested.
It is a good start to seeing options and at least breaking down some of the misconceptions about it.
I don't remember if he spoke of this iteration process. I think he may have.

I agree with the latter part of your reply though
I do have much to learn. And this is very much part of that process.
My ideas are flexible and I hope they are challenged. I will take on anything that makes sense or shows an idea to be flawed.
I can be slow to decide though. Deep wells and all (see sig)

As far as anarchy based societies and me are concerned, it seems the best direction to aim for so far. Because I have a strong will towards freedom of the individual. Which of course means on the topic of abortion I would have to vote pro choice if voting.
A weak attempt at a return to topic. Maybe you can help

Not all that gone on friend Naom as he seems to shy away at certain subjects. But to take a most valid point. Not really on topic as you say.

Personally a thought on this thread to begin with. Maybe still on the river bank...Fishing.

Dozer.

Bezuhov · 13-03-2015 3:17pm

Wow !!
Just looked in to see if things had moved on since I decided this thread had become a waste of time re its original subject.
Thank you all for illustrating my original point that useful discussion of abortion is only possible if common ground can first be found on the question of when life / rights begin. ( possible I would emphasise, not guaranteed )
Enough !

The Corinthian · 13-03-2015 3:48pm

Bezuhov wrote: »

Thank you all for illustrating my original point that useful discussion of abortion is only possible if common ground can first be found on the question of when life / rights begin.

What on Earth makes you think that anyone currently engaged in the political debate over Abortion has the slightest interest in useful discussion?

As I already pointed out the whole thing is a propaganda war by two diametrically opposed sides seeking to win the hearts, and not minds, of the majority.

oldozer · 13-03-2015 5:54pm

Bezuhov wrote: »

Wow !!
Just looked in to see if things had moved on since I decided this thread had become a waste of time re its original subject.
Thank you all for illustrating my original point that useful discussion of abortion is only possible if common ground can first be found on the question of when life / rights begin. ( possible I would emphasise, not guaranteed )
Enough !

A tad unfair to call this thread a waste of time. Any debate on abortion is far from a waste of time. It is something sorely needed in the times we live in. A practice which has been with us since the dawn of time, we just now have to justify it, make it legal for whatever that may be worth. There is no common ground in my mind as to this act. I have stated so, but did you answer me on that point ?

I did join this thread as I thought it interesting. I also thought the OP had a need to understand why us Irish seemed to not agree with abortion. I did call out the OP as I was of the opinion of this being a bait thread. My experience on forums makes me wonder when the OP disappears, but this OP did make comment when I first made remark as to lack of interest on their part. We do have to keep in mind though of the OP who said they were not of this place.

Like you I may have been annoyed as this thread seemed to deviate. Not my business though as to how people think. It is a forum of many minds. Like many forums I have been on, the wonder of it all is. Even the fool will make the genius. I had always been a curse to Bible people on forums I would visit in the past. I did ask questions of said Bible people here. One answered me which lead me to search, find answers. Not making me believe their point of view, but I did learn a little in my search.

Common ground on how life begins is not the remit of this OP in any regard. It does have space here if you are willing to put forward a theory on it ? How it has any effect on abortion ? A point of view which you seem to think is relevant ? My own view on life and creation is here as stated in one of my posts. How the embryo got there is not the problem. It is life or it is not. There are no grey areas there as we are always given but two choices. How we deal with the result of those two choices is the problem.

Dozer.

The Corinthian · 13-03-2015 6:26pm

oldozer wrote: »

It is life or it is not.

Not as simple as that. Life does not guarantee a right to that life.

oldozer · 13-03-2015 6:53pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not as simple as that. Life does not guarantee a right to that life.

Life is just life. After life there is death. We could agree to differ as to what happens in between. Birth though results in death.

Dozer.

The Corinthian · 13-03-2015 7:01pm

oldozer wrote: »

We could agree to differ as to what happens in between.

Indeed we could and it would demonstrate that the debate is not as simple as "it is life or it is not" - in fact it makes all the difference.

oldozer · 13-03-2015 11:41pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed we could and it would demonstrate that the debate is not as simple as "it is life or it is not" - in fact it makes all the difference.

Conception is life. That seems simple regardless of the how of it. Death is the lack of life. Hence the need for debate as the OP suggested.

A bit simplistic perhaps, we could say life is created. At what stage do we determine the right to end life ?

Dozer.

The Corinthian · 14-03-2015 1:40pm

oldozer wrote: »

Hence the need for debate as the OP suggested.

TBH, the OP did not really suggest any debate of any kind. Only a straw poll for her own purposes - if all she was doing was researching for a propaganda piece (pro or against) she'll cherry pick whatever she wants anyway.

A bit simplistic perhaps, we could say life is created. At what stage do we determine the right to end life ?

Pretty much at any stage, as things stand.

Of course even if it is acceptable to end life at any stage, it begs the question under what circumstances and whether one may do so through direct or indirect action, or through omission of action.

After all, we can already condemn others to death, literally, without doing a thing and we accept this in society as moral, or at least not immoral; the parents of a dead child that could be the doner of an organ for another can refuse to allow the donation, without which the potential recipient will die. A classic case of where the right to life is superseded by the right to bodily integrity of another.

Abortion is not exactly the same, of course. It involves action, rather than omission of action, but at the same time it involves the bodily integrity of a living person, not a potentially dead one.

So do I have an answer? No. But I know enough to say the answer does not lie in the simplistic question of whether the fetus is a person or not, let alone alive or not (a cow is alive after all). Being a person does not guarantee anyone an absolute right to life.

zeffabelli · 14-03-2015 2:18pm

oldozer wrote: »

Conception is life. That seems simple regardless of the how of it. Death is the lack of life. Hence the need for debate as the OP suggested.

A bit simplistic perhaps, we could say life is created. At what stage do we determine the right to end life ?

Dozer.

Rights are not absolute. A woman's right to choose has constraints and conditions, and so does our collective right to life. Both sides fall down with black and white thinking on the notion of rights in the first place. There is not one single right that is not compromisable.

Children have even less rights. They can't vote, they can't sit on juries, they can't sign medical forms, until they reach adulthood, legally the line drawn at 18. The further they move from dependancy, the closer they get to obtaining rights. What rights to babies have? Feotus...and then you get into this infinite regression that gets us nowhere.

The law works in such a way that it has to draw approximate lines in the sand. An rights only have meaning in terms how law can and will enforce them.

To me the whole where does life begin question is pointless and unanswerable. It gets very xeno's paradox (achilles and the tortoise.) Let's accept it is a life. Fine, but even with that how would you justify enforced pregnancy and labor punishable through law enforcement and murder charges? How do you justify the risks of pregnancy etc? How are you going to support a 50 year old woman facing retirement and having to raise a down syndrome child and also risk her life in a pregnancy and delivery?

If one goes through this line of thinking we might want to imprison women who smoke and drink during pregnancy? Are we going to have manslaughter charges for still births due to drug and alcohol abuse? The fact that Ireland does not do this, "confesses" that they do not see parity between the life of an adult and the life that is still in gestation.

[Interesting that we don't have a right to end our own life though without being locked up by a psychiatrist- the only people who can do this without a jury- if it is your body why shouldn't you be able to do what you want with it- demonstrates a radical contradiction in the notion of bodily autonomy- this right is not absolute either.]

Abortion has to be the most unanswerable moral question there is. I certainly don't have any stable perspective or solution.

oldozer · 14-03-2015 9:39pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Rights are not absolute. A woman's right to choose has constraints and conditions, and so does our collective right to life. Both sides fall down with black and white thinking on the notion of rights in the first place. There is not one single right that is not compromisable.

Children have even less rights. They can't vote, they can't sit on juries, they can't sign medical forms, until they reach adulthood, legally the line drawn at 18. The further they move from dependancy, the closer they get to obtaining rights. What rights to babies have? Feotus...and then you get into this infinite regression that gets us nowhere.

The law works in such a way that it has to draw approximate lines in the sand. An rights only have meaning in terms how law can and will enforce them.

To me the whole where does life begin question is pointless and unanswerable. It gets very xeno's paradox (achilles and the tortoise.) Let's accept it is a life. Fine, but even with that how would you justify enforced pregnancy and labor punishable through law enforcement and murder charges? How do you justify the risks of pregnancy etc? How are you going to support a 50 year old woman facing retirement and having to raise a down syndrome child and also risk her life in a pregnancy and delivery?

If one goes through this line of thinking we might want to imprison women who smoke and drink during pregnancy? Are we going to have manslaughter charges for still births due to drug and alcohol abuse? The fact that Ireland does not do this, "confesses" that they do not see parity between the life of an adult and the life that is still in gestation.

[Interesting that we don't have a right to end our own life though without being locked up by a psychiatrist- the only people who can do this without a jury- if it is your body why shouldn't you be able to do what you want with it- demonstrates a radical contradiction in the notion of bodily autonomy- this right is not absolute either.]

Abortion has to be the most unanswerable moral question there is. I certainly don't have any stable perspective or solution.

Kudos to you as you do pose very important thoughts. Those thoughts as does the thoughts of the Corinthian on here. You do both answer your own questions in the last line of writing in each of your posts............

Sorry there now if I seem to be simplistic. The answer though I have always thought of without is always within. Very important thoughts indeed in this, and some other posts on here. Lurkers beware maybe, become more pro active. I do have a g/daughter who is a psychiatric nurse. I was and still am her favourite subject of thought.

I'm off now to another place where mods tolerate me. I would be known there as something of a tread killer/paddy is drunk again sort of thing. Thank you and the Corinthian for further thought. Know this though, you are not alone....Tuaire dom do lamh.

My regards Murt.

The Corinthian · 15-03-2015 9:24am

oldozer wrote: »

You do both answer your own questions in the last line of writing in each of your posts............

Actually neither of us does.

The only thing that either of us says with any certainty is that the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or not is not answered with whether the fetus is a person (let alone alive) or not.

caitie · 21-03-2015 12:30am

Abortion views and opinions can't be assigned to gender or age. I often find that because I'm a young, highly educated woman with liberal views, people turn to me giving opinions assuming that I also feel the same, and they are shocked when I turn around and tell them that I think that it's completely wrong.

I think a child does not ask to be created. When there are videos such as 'The Silent Scream' showing the foetus trying to wriggle away from the 'hoover' and opening it's mouth trying to scream, how can we say that is not a life?

When a mother is sick, a foetus can help to heal her. The foetus is trying to survive. Just because the foetus can not complain, take legal action, or demand its rights do not mean that its rights should be taken away when it is convenient for those of us who can complain and demand.

I know people feel differently about this issue, but to me abortion is a form of convenient murder.

As I said earlier about opinions not being assigned to gender or age, my mother (who is obviously older than me!) is pro choice, and my dad is pro life. It's down to whether people value the life of the mother or the child more, I think.

zeffabelli · 21-03-2015 9:59am

caitie wrote: »

As I said earlier about opinions not being assigned to gender or age, my mother (who is obviously older than me!) is pro choice, and my dad is pro life. It's down to whether people value the life of the mother or the child more, I think.

If you are going to choose which one to "value" more, how do you choose your values?

How did you come to decide the feotus' life is more value?

What is your criteria for assessment?

And how do you abstract that into universal application?

caitie · 21-03-2015 11:19am

zeffabelli wrote: »

If you are going to choose which one to "value" more, how do you choose your values?

How did you come to decide the feotus' life is more value?

What is your criteria for assessment?

And how do you abstract that into universal application?

I just think that the life of the unborn child is as important as the life of the living child, they are living even though we cannot physically hold them yet. And for me personally a child's life is worth more than an adults, children are innocent and have their whole lives ahead of them. That's just where I get my reasoning from, I know not everyone will agree, but when I think of it the way I do there's no way I could support abortion.

It's probably also a bit to do with the fact that I wasn't a planned baby, my parents weren't yet married and when I was born we all lived in one room, and they struggled to afford everything. If abortion was as readily available here as it is in other countries, they could very well have decided that it wasn't yet the right time for them, and I wouldn't be here. When I think of that I think of all the aborted babies who could have had lives and families.

It's just a very personal opinion!

zeffabelli · 21-03-2015 11:56am

caitie wrote: »

I just think that the life of the unborn child is as important as the life of the living child, they are living even though we cannot physically hold them yet. And for me personally a child's life is worth more than an adults, children are innocent and have their whole lives ahead of them. That's just where I get my reasoning from, I know not everyone will agree, but when I think of it the way I do there's no way I could support abortion.

It's probably also a bit to do with the fact that I wasn't a planned baby, my parents weren't yet married and when I was born we all lived in one room, and they struggled to afford everything. If abortion was as readily available here as it is in other countries, they could very well have decided that it wasn't yet the right time for them, and I wouldn't be here. When I think of that I think of all the aborted babies who could have had lives and families.

It's just a very personal opinion!

How do you apply this universally? How would you apply this let's say to a woman who has already had three caesarian's?

Let's assume partity in value of the life of the child outside the womb to the child inside the womb. I will follow you there.

However, the life in the womb has a different set of consequences to the life of the mother than the life outside the womb does.

How do you reconcile this in order to apply universal principal?

The Corinthian · 21-03-2015 12:24pm

caitie wrote: »

It's just a very personal opinion!

This is all very well, but what happens when someone else's opinion is the diametric opposite to yours? Is their "very personal opinion" as valid? As zeffabelli points out, the problem with opinions is that the opinions are subjective and thus cannot be applied beyond the person who has them, which is a bit pointless if debating abortion in terms of universal morality.

To put it another way; opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one.

And for me personally a child's life is worth more than an adults, children are innocent and have their whole lives ahead of them.

I'm sorry, but I do have to bring you up on this point. You've done two things here; firstly you've abandoned the notion that all human life should be treated equally. You've created a hierarchy of some people having a greater right to life than others.

Secondly, you've introduced a rational for this, of which innocence is really undefined and lack of experience is a bit dubious as a reason. What is it exactly? Ignorance? Are children really innocent, or are they egocentric narcissists with little understanding of experience of others?

Does this mean an idealistic 20-year old has a greater right to life to a Worldly 60-year old?

zeffabelli · 21-03-2015 12:45pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Secondly, you've introduced a rational for this, of which innocence is really undefined and lack of experience is a bit dubious as a reason. What is it exactly? Ignorance? Are children really innocent, or are they egocentric narcissists with little understanding of experience of others?

Does this mean an idealistic 20-year old has a greater right to life to a Worldly 60-year old?

The irony of this rational is that it's nearly the same argument for "lack of conciousness' that has been used to support the pro-choice argument.

For both sides one's life rests on other's perceptions of their wisdom or lack thereof?

The Corinthian · 21-03-2015 1:02pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

The irony of this rational is that it's nearly the same argument for "lack of conciousness' that has been used to support the pro-choice argument.

For both sides one's life rests on other's perceptions of their wisdom or lack thereof?

Both the popular pro-Life and pro-choice positions are based upon the need to prove a fetus a person or not. I don't believe that either pursues this strategy because they are genuinely interested in discerning whether abortion is moral or not, but because the entire debate is concentrated on swaying public opinion with appeals to emotion. Truth, either way, is irrelevant.

zeffabelli · 21-03-2015 1:18pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Both the popular pro-Life and pro-choice positions are based upon the need to prove a fetus a person or not. I don't believe that either pursues this strategy because they are genuinely interested in discerning whether abortion is moral or not, but because the entire debate is concentrated on swaying public opinion with appeals to emotion. Truth, either way, is irrelevant.

They both need to to this because it is hard to stomach that we might make the ending og human life accessible for E 400.

It is not a nice thought.

Incompatible compassions are hard to reconcile, maybe impossible.

The Corinthian · 21-03-2015 1:41pm

Thing is we do that sort of thing all the time. Government budgets are cut or reallocated and inevitably someone won't get the life-saving treatment they need. Or find themselves homeless and on the street. Military action is ordered and inevitably someone, often a bystander, will end up dead. An organ becomes available and some official determines who will receive it and who will not. Even when someone buys a stake in a supermarket, they'll not give it a second thought, though they might be horrified by the process by which it came to arrive on that shelf.

None of these are nice thoughts, but they are often necessary. The reason that they can take place is that the average individual is shielded from the reality of them because most cannot get past the emotional perspective to be able to judge if they are necessary or not.

zeffabelli · 21-03-2015 1:48pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Thing is we do that sort of thing all the time. Government budgets are cut or reallocated and inevitably someone won't get the life-saving treatment they need. Or find themselves homeless and on the street. Military action is ordered and inevitably someone, often a bystander, will end up dead. An organ becomes available and some official determines who will receive it and who will not. Even when someone buys a stake in a supermarket, they'll not give it a second thought, though they might be horrified by the process by which it came to arrive on that shelf.

None of these are nice thoughts, but they are often necessary. The reason that they can take place is that the average individual is shielded from the reality of them because most cannot get past the emotional perspective to be able to judge if they are necessary or not.

They can take place because they are not taboo.

A mother ending her child's life is massively taboo.

So it has to be either not a child (pro choice) or it can't happen at all (pro-life.) Or there better be a very damned good reason for it.

The Corinthian · 21-03-2015 2:54pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

They can take place because they are not taboo.

A mother ending her child's life is massively taboo.

Actually, the main reason any of these things can happen is because we're happy not to acknowledge they happen - out of sight, out of mind - although I'd agree in the taboo effect in that once you can invoke images of cute little babies, it's a lot easier to get people wound up and incapable of rational discourse.

There was a discussion somewhere here on life-saving treatment being withheld due to budget cuts and while you did get some hysterical posters, there were certainly more than you would find in a discussion on abortion. Had the life-saving treatment been withheld from a child - I suspect that would have been a different story.

So it has to be either not a child (pro choice) or it can't happen at all (pro-life.) Or there better be a very damned good reason for it.

There better be a very damned good reason for taking anyone's life, directly or otherwise, I would have thought. Either way, no one is bothering to debate whether there is because we can never get past the 'is it a person' question.

zeffabelli · 21-03-2015 3:11pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

There was a discussion somewhere here on life-saving treatment being withheld due to budget cuts and while you did get some hysterical posters, there were certainly more than you would find in a discussion on abortion. Had the life-saving treatment been withheld from a child - I suspect that would have been a different story.

This is a different thing altogether. I don't know what debate you are referencing here, but generally people get worked up about saving kids lives, because it is perverse for parents to outlive their children. Why do you think there is so much advertising playing on parents fears of safety etc. We know we are going to die, and we know we can't really control when or how, but we do want the natural certainty that we will not live to see our children die.

The Corinthian wrote: »

There better be a very damned good reason for taking anyone's life, directly or otherwise, I would have thought. Either way, no one is bothering to debate whether there is because we can never get past the 'is it a person' question.

The problem is when the state does it, either through war or through execution, it is quite a different debate to when it comes to the invididual.

You have the context of the state/individual relationsship, the medical professional relationship, and the mother/child one. The relationship will determine how people assess the deeds.

Agree with you about the stuck in the mud is it a life or not debate.

The Corinthian · 21-03-2015 3:46pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is a different thing altogether. I don't know what debate you are referencing here, but generally people get worked up about saving kids lives, because it is perverse for parents to outlive their children. Why do you think there is so much advertising playing on parents fears of safety etc. We know we are going to die, and we know we can't really control when or how, but we do want the natural certainty that we will not live to see our children die.

That's precisely what I'm referencing; the debate it framed in an emotional manner, focusing on children so that any rational discussion is impossible.

The problem is when the state does it, either through war or through execution, it is quite a different debate to when it comes to the invididual.

Not sure what you mean here. I agree that there are differences in how the someone emotionally detached from the question at hand is likely to determine whether something is right or wrong, but what we're doing, or attempting to do, here is determine that very question from a position of emotional detachment. Rationally.

zeffabelli · 21-03-2015 3:52pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's precisely what I'm referencing; the debate it framed in an emotional manner, focusing on children so that any rational discussion is impossible.

People are not rational about their children. They dont want to die before their kids and that is just going to drive the whole debate.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not sure what you mean here. I agree that there are differences in how the someone emotionally detached from the question at hand is likely to determine whether something is right or wrong, but what we're doing, or attempting to do, here is determine that very question from a position of emotional detachment. Rationally.

What?

What I am going to say, I am unable to tell if it agrees with you or does not.

We are not robots, regardless of how rational one thinks they are, decisions are ultimately emotionally driven at their bottom line.

Compassion is the beginning of morality, which is why it is not cut and dried. Compassion for one often means no compassion for the other. Sometimes, as in abortion, they are so incompatible there is no universal principal that can be applied as far as I can see.

Maybe someone else has a better answer to the conundrum.

caitie · 21-03-2015 5:16pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

How do you apply this universally? How would you apply this let's say to a woman who has already had three caesarian's?

Let's assume partity in value of the life of the child outside the womb to the child inside the womb. I will follow you there.

However, the life in the womb has a different set of consequences to the life of the mother than the life outside the womb does.

How do you reconcile this in order to apply universal principal?

This is all very well, but what happens when someone else's opinion is the diametric opposite to yours? Is their "very personal opinion" as valid? As zeffabelli points out, the problem with opinions is that the opinions are subjective and thus cannot be applied beyond the person who has them, which is a bit pointless if debating abortion in terms of universal morality.

To put it another way; opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one.

I wasn't attacking anyone else's opinion, so I would appreciate it if people didn't attack mine. I was simply replying to the OP as she was asking Irish people's views on abortion. If it's voted in, I'll be disappointed, if it's not, I'll be happy. But I understand why people have different opinions on it, and I'd appreciate it if other people understood that as well.

To be clear, there is no applying an issue like this to a universal principal, in my opinion. I understand if a child isn't going to survive and carrying it would put the mother through too much, but what I'm against is creating life and then terminating it for materialistic reasons. Did anyone read the recent article about the woman in the U.S. who aborted her baby when she found out it would be male, because she wanted a girl? To me, that is cruel. When parents aren't ready for a child just yet, well maybe the baby isn't ready to be killed. The way I see it, it's not called murder because the victims have noone to demand their rights (as it is their own family aborting them) and they have no voice with which to protest.

This is why, as a young Irish woman, I see it as morally wrong.

caitie · 21-03-2015 5:19pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I do have to bring you up on this point. You've done two things here; firstly you've abandoned the notion that all human life should be treated equally. You've created a hierarchy of some people having a greater right to life than others.

This is exactly what Abortion is, is it not? The unborn having a lesser right to life? Infanticide being illegal, abortion being debatable?

zeffabelli · 21-03-2015 7:06pm

caitie wrote: »

This is exactly what Abortion is, is it not? The unborn having a lesser right to life? Infanticide being illegal, abortion being debatable?

ABortion is illegal in Ireland.

Not sure what the statutes are but perhaps you could look up for us whether obstetricians face criminal prosecution and murder charges in Ireland?

Do you have an case law on it...that would be interesting too to know.

Pat Mustard · 22-03-2015 12:40am

caitie wrote: »

I just think that the life of the unborn child is as important as the life of the living child, they are living even though we cannot physically hold them yet. And for me personally a child's life is worth more than an adults, children are innocent and have their whole lives ahead of them. That's just where I get my reasoning from, I know not everyone will agree, but when I think of it the way I do there's no way I could support abortion.

The Constitution states the following:

40.3.3° 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.

In Irish constitutional law, the right to life of the unborn is equal to that of the unborn.

That seems impractical. Suppose we take the example of a thirty year old mother of two children, who is a patient in a maternity ward, and if a dangerous issue arises regarding her pregnancy, who should be given priority; mother or unborn child? According to the constitution, the unborn child and the mother have an equal right to life. The mother does not have priority, under constitutional law. However, if we suppose that this mother already has two children who depend upon her, it seems unreasonable not to afford her priority. The two existing children need their mother.

In the Savita Halappanavar case, the lady involved was experiencing a miscarriage and had requested an abortion. This was refused on the basis that the foetus had a heartbeat and that the mother did not appear to be in any physiological danger. She experienced septic shock and despite later medical intervention, she died.

Following that case, the government kicked for touch and enacted the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, which specifies that if there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman's life from a physical illness, and in the reasonable opinion of two medical practitioners, the only way of averting the risk is by carrying out an abortion, then an abortion can be carried out.

In the Halappanavar case, it had not been thought that the life of the mother was in danger, even though her health most certainly was. Therefore, it appears to me that nothing has changed and that there is nothing to prevent another Halappanavar situation arising again. The constitution and legislation do not provide adequate protection to expectant mothers.

I cannot see any sensible reason to afford equal status to the life of an unborn child with that of a mother. The idea doesn't make sense to me.

To go further, to suggest that the life of an unborn child has more worth than the life of a mother, makes even less sense.

caitie · 22-03-2015 12:51am

zeffabelli wrote: »

ABortion is illegal in Ireland.

Not sure what the statutes are but perhaps you could look up for us whether obstetricians face criminal prosecution and murder charges in Ireland?

Do you have an case law on it...that would be interesting too to know.

Yes, it is illegal in most cases for now, but it is still being debated.

And yes, since abortions are against the law any obstetricians carrying out one would face criminal charges.

The Corinthian · 22-03-2015 10:53am

zeffabelli wrote: »

We are not robots, regardless of how rational one thinks they are, decisions are ultimately emotionally driven at their bottom line.

Never suggested we were. I'm well aware that codes of ethics and laws will end up influenced, if not dictated, by sentiment. I'm talking about it from the context of the debate here, where I would presume we would seek to avoid such anti-intellectualism.

Compassion is the beginning of morality, which is why it is not cut and dried.

Not sure I'd agree. Morality, as a human invention, is as much a social concept, designed to allow us to coexist. Even at it's most basic, tribal, level it tends to lay down basic rules protecting regarding life, property and whatever hierarchy is in place to oversee things. That's got little to do with compassion and is more about cold-blooded utilitarianism, when you come down to it.

Should you want evidence of this, all you need do is look at the diversity of morality in human cultures. While all tend to hold true to the above social principles many will hold no compassion at all for some scenarios, and others practically wallow in it.

caitie wrote: »

This is exactly what Abortion is, is it not? The unborn having a lesser right to life? Infanticide being illegal, abortion being debatable?

That's my point - you've accepted the very principle that would make abortion moral. The moment you did this, the argument that human life should be equally cherished went out the window and you opened the door to debate on which human life is worth more - ethically, you're on a par with an abortionist, all that differs is the criteria by which you value people.

The Mustard wrote: »

I cannot see any sensible reason to afford equal status to the life of an unborn child with that of a mother. The idea doesn't make sense to me.

Then this begs the question why does it not make sense to you? Caitie suggested one argument for the opposite stance, albeit a very weak one, which I questioned and she chose not to defend. However, you've not offered any.

To go further, to suggest that the life of an unborn child has more worth than the life of a mother, makes even less sense.

Again it depends on the arguments given. If a better case for the value of the unborn child can be made over that of the mother, then so be it. If the reverse can be done, then that too would be a rational conclusion.

I would, however make two observations. Firstly, when weighing up the rights and values of each party, at what point is it acceptable to override the rights of the other? When the life of one will almost certainly be lost without the death of the other? When the physical health will be detrimentally affected? Mental health? Financial? Simply bodily integrity?

Secondly, I do think that suggesting that the life of an unborn child has more worth than the life of a mother is a bit of an own goal for the pro-life position. It accepts the concept that the value of one human can compared against another and, beyond imaginary and emotional measurements, the unborn child will likely be at the loosing end of such an assessment.

zeffabelli · 22-03-2015 12:56pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Never suggested we were. I'm well aware that codes of ethics and laws will end up influenced, if not dictated, by sentiment. I'm talking about it from the context of the debate here, where I would presume we would seek to avoid such anti-intellectualism.

Not sure I'd agree. Morality, as a human invention, is as much a social concept, designed to allow us to coexist. Even at it's most basic, tribal, level it tends to lay down basic rules protecting regarding life, property and whatever hierarchy is in place to oversee things. That's got little to do with compassion and is more about cold-blooded utilitarianism, when you come down to it.

They are not divorced concepts- one feeds into the other. We are in constant flux and debate over how to delegate compassion, and how we delgate it will influence how we order things.

The Godfather illustrates this well. Michael begins joining the military. His father asks why why have compassion for strangers. This violates home ethics.

What you see in the film is Michaels transformation back into family values of not having compassion for strangers and reserving compassion for family.

This very ethos is what leads back to the destruction of the family itself. We see how the delegation of compassion has very real consequences on life, death and order itself. It is the beginning of ethics and morality.

With abortion....do we hold compassion for the mother or for the feotus? We see the same conflict in the death penalty too.

With any life and death choice.....for whom do we have the compassion. This of course gets very complex because we must also consider law...universal principal and precedent.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would, however make two observations. Firstly, when weighing up the rights and values of each party, at what point is it acceptable to override the rights of the other? When the life of one will almost certainly be lost without the death of the other? When the physical health will be detrimentally affected? Mental health? Financial? Simply bodily integrity?

Usually when a judge feels like it.

Pat Mustard · 22-03-2015 6:36pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then this begs the question why does it not make sense to you? Caitie suggested one argument for the opposite stance, albeit a very weak one, which I questioned and she chose not to defend. However, you've not offered any.

I didn't clarify my reason, which was that children need their mother. An anecdote had been passed to me about an expectant mother who asked her consultant obstetrician to give full priority to the life her unborn child over her own life, should any conflict arise in that regard. The consultant argued that she had two existing children who were dependent upon her and was of the opinion that the greater good would be served if she survived, should such a conflict situation arise. In this anecdote, the woman in question changed her instructions to her doctor in view of her responsibilities to her two existing children.

I suppose that it could be regarded as a value judgement as between the potential future function of a foetus which may be born and may add to society versus the existing function of an adult in society.

Additionally, the current law regarding abortion in this country leaves us with a situation where expectant mothers have fewer rights to bodily integrity than women who are not pregnant. It is arguable that this could lead to a situation where women are disincentivised from becoming pregnant in this country.

To quote the bereaved husband of Savita Halappanavar:

“You lose your rights basically when you are pregnant here I think. You lose your rights to get necessary healthcare. Savita and me, we knew that abortion was illegal in Ireland but not termination when it is a planned pregnancy, when you can’t save the baby and the mother may die if you don’t do something like terminate. That was big shock for us.”

I'd suggest that the facts in the Halappanavar case alone should be enough to give credence to the priority to the right of life of the mother.

The Corinthian · 23-03-2015 11:54am

zeffabelli wrote: »

They are not divorced concepts- one feeds into the other. We are in constant flux and debate over how to delegate compassion, and how we delgate it will influence how we order things.

In the real World, certainly. But if you want to use that as a justification for irrational, emotional arguments here, then no. If I want that I can just look to the real World.

The Godfather illustrates this well. Michael begins joining the military. His father asks why why have compassion for strangers. This violates home ethics.

What you see in the film is Michaels transformation back into family values of not having compassion for strangers and reserving compassion for family.

This is the same Michael who has his brother-in-law killed in the first movie and his brother in the second? Who must suppress his compassion and is later haunted by the second murder that he felt compelled to order on the basis of that moral code?

I think you misunderstand the moral code practiced in that series of movies. It's got very little to do with compassion, but with a framework of honour and fealty - basically a form of Feudalism.

With any life and death choice.....for whom do we have the compassion. This of course gets very complex because we must also consider law...universal principal and precedent.

As I said, down that road lies anti-intellectualism. The justification for whatever you feel. That may happen in the Real World, but I'd rather not entertain it here.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I suppose that it could be regarded as a value judgement as between the potential future function of a foetus which may be born and may add to society versus the existing function of an adult in society.

A very valid argument.

I'd suggest that the facts in the Halappanavar case alone should be enough to give credence to the priority to the right of life of the mother.

Perhaps in the Halappanavar case, and with the benefit of hindsight, but are you suggesting that the facts of this case can be applied universally?

zeffabelli · 23-03-2015 12:09pm

^We'll just have to disagree and leave it at that.

It's all very well to tinker with things intellectually, but to divorce that from the concrete very real consequences of such tinkering is as useless and dangerous as considering the concrete without linking it to the intellectual.

Abortion

Comments