Keep abortion out of Ireland

Zombrex wrote: »

Repeating back what I said to you in its entirety is not being more specific.

Well, have you a citation for any part of what Festus quoted? There's only two sentences there; can you provide citations for either of them?

The Brigadier wrote: »

What always puzzles me is how people can get so worked up over the "right" to choose and yet ignore the rights of the unborn.

It all boils down to what they consider a person to be.

The Brigadier wrote: »

And why do they think that they have the right to decide?

There's no issue of rights here. Someone has to decide what a person is and that frankly isn't the easiest or most clear cut decision to make.

yammycat wrote: »

We are in a pretty serious economic depression now with a lot of jobless, Irish women are going to England to get abortions regardless of the morals, the abortions will happen if the woman wants one, all the handwringing will do is make her buy a plane or boat ticket. We should legalise abortion here as it would create jobs and keep the money in the Irish economy.

Well, no, I don't think that argument will fly. If there's a serious ethical issue over abortion, I don't think the ethical issue disappears just because we can make a few shillings out of performing abortions.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think the implication is that if Hitchens said it, all atheists must agreee with it; just that if Hitchens said it, it cannot be classed as a view which can only be held out of religious conviction.

And where is it said that only the Religious are anti-abortion?

I know plenty of Atheists/Agnostics who are quite anti abortion, and even a few Christians who are pro-choice.

That was a simply case of Festus attempting to be a smart-arse, really.

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, for example, in this very thread, it was strongly implied about four hours ago, by IT-Guy, in post #521.

In post #519 I pointed out that there isn't agreement about when human "personhood" begins, that the question is not a scientific one or capable of being scientifically settled and that future agreement on this question seems unlikely, and I asked how we could approach the question in a way which recognises and respects the fact that there is a diversity of views held in society.

IT-Guy's response, in post #521, was to suggest that the best way of respecting this diversity of views was to disregard entirely, in public policy, the view that personhood is found at conception. And the only reason he offers for discounting this view is that it's held "out of religious conviction", and therefore it's "absolute nonsense" to base public policy on it.

And I don't think IT-Guy's position is unusual. It's quite common for people to propose a legal abortion regime which attaches no weight at all to the view that the foetus has any interest to be respected or protected, and to justify it by saying that religiously-held views must be disregarded in the public policy of a secular state. Whether the argument from secularity is weak or strong, it falls over completely once it is conceded that a "personhood from conception" viewpoint can be held on other than religious grounds. Which, as you and I agree, it can.

Thanks for the reply Peregrinus, I'd like to clarify one or two things that you've highlighted. As this is the christianity forum my assumption was that most anti-abortion arguments would stem from a religious belief. Obviously certain posters such as yourself have other reasons for your position on abortion. Just to be clear, I'm well aware that anti abortion arguments exist outside of religious beliefs and that both parties can come to the same position independently. Either way, it's wrong to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies and to have that belief enshrined in legislation in a modern, supposedly secular society.

As for 'a legal abortion regime which attaches no weight at all to the view that the foetus has any interest to be respected or protected', I'm a bit surprised this needs to be stated? If abortion exists then this point is moot to the government involved? The only reason abortion isn't legal here is an argument from numbers/unpopularity, which logically is not a valid reason to prohibit abortion or any other service required of a minority of a population, especially when it has no physical impact on those not requiring or availing of abortion. The argument about when personhood arises is irrelevant, if a woman wants a late term abortion then that should be her right and nobody else's business.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm not sure that there is such a way [a societal approach to abortion which recognizes the diversity of opinion about human personhood] since it will always come down to the core issue of whether abortion is legally available or not, in this country at least. I would think though that it should at least be possible for most people on both sides of the argument to say that whether legal or not, it certainly isn't a desirable outcome and we should look at the reasons why some women choose to get abortions in order that steps might be taken to reduce the numbers. Take economic factors - it always annoys me when some people in the pro-life camp (and this seems to be something of a theme in right-wing American politics) argue that abortion is the worst thing imaginable and should be outlawed, and that at the same time single mothers are a drain on the taxpayer and should receive no benefits. So I would think that there should be grounds for both sides of the debate to work together on finding ways of reducing the numbers of crisis pregnancies.

I think you’re on to something here.

The rights-based discourse about abortion laws seems to me a very sterile one. It consists of two parties holding inconsistent philosophical positions shouting at one another. Neither of their positions can be shown to be objectively true. Each seeks to have the other’s position disregarded on the (untestable) ground that it is objectively false, and to have its own position reflected in law on the (untestable) ground that it is objectively true. Both sides are, basically, fundamentalist and proud of it. It’s hard to go anywhere from here.

And the result is a very polarized discussion, in which what might be quite large areas of agreement are eclipsed. The great bulk of abortions are undertaken for family planning reasons, as an alternative to contraception, effectively. The women concerned have abortions because they didn’t wish to become pregnant in the first place. And there should be general agreement that, as a form of family planning, abortion is very, very suboptimal. Medically, psychologically, ethically, financially, socially and in many other ways almost any other method of family planning would be preferable.

And, as you point out, many people who do find themselves facing an abortion choice would make a different choice if better supports and a better culture were available. It’s been noted before that, in the US, abortion rates rise under “pro-choice” administrations and fall under “pro-life” administrations, because the other policies which tend to characterize those administrations with regard to social integration, welfare, economic opportunity, community support, etc influence womens’ choices much more than their rhetoric about abortion does.

In other words, a high abortion rate is a real social problem; it indicates that women’s needs and couples’ needs are not being met, and they are being forced into stressful, distressing situations that in most cases should never arise. But in the polarized discussion that we have on abortion, a “pro-choice” advocate could never concede this. Any public policy aimed at reducing recourse to abortion has to be treated as “anti-choice”. And, on the other hand, “pro-life” advocates cannot be seen to support an administration whose policies would forseeably reduce recourse to abortion, because their fundamentalist position requires them to prioritise rhetoric over outcomes.

In short, the fundamentalist, rights-based dialogue about abortion is a pretty toxic one, and it produces really bad outcomes, both for women facing crisis pregnancies and (if we consider they have a moral interest) for unborn babies. It’s no coincidence, I think, that in places where the rights-based dialogue is at its strongest, like the US, we find a very high abortion rate, and a very high proportion of women who feel coerced by circumstance or by the expectation of others into abortion.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can look at other societies which have liberal, or at least modestly liberal, legal regimes governing abortion, and yet strikingly low abortion rates. The political discourse about abortion there tends not to be expressed in terms of fundamental rights, and legal regimes recognise that while an abortion must ultimately proceed from a woman’s choice, there are other interests involved which the state should protect and which should be factored into the decision. On the one hand, you can see this as a messy compromise. On the other hand, you can see it as something that actually works to afford women choice while at the same time taking seriously the view that their choice affects not just them but others, and that the community has a legitimate interest in influencing the context in which that choice is made.

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be honest, IT_Guy, I still find your position here fairly absolutist. You’re asserting an ethical position (“it's wrong to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies”) which it seems to me deliberately oversimplifies the issue - unless you take the (I think untenable) view that a foetus is part of a woman’s body, an abortion decision can’t be reduced to just a decision about what to do with one’s own body. And then you demand that this be “enshrined in legislation” without any real argument as to why this ethical view, rather than a different one, is the one that must be enshrined.

Yes it is deliberate but not an over simplification, simply a simplification, if you will. If I come across as absolutist then it's because I have a very definite position on abortion that comes from years of consideration and argument as well as experiences with women who had to go to the UK to get an abortion. I had a similar point of view to you Peregrinus in terms of believing the argument should be looked at from the fetus point of view. It doesn't have a point of view, it has no rights as it's not an individual.

I do believe that the fetus is part of the womans body and as I replied to Plowman, it's right to be there is completely at the mother's consent. The reason why I believe abortion should be legalised is because if you don't wish to have an abortion and bring the baby to term then every facility is available to the expectant mother. No impact on those wanting an abortion. For those who want an abortion there is no consideration for their needs i.e. the provision of abortion services. Severe impact on those wanting an abortion.
It's beyond argument at this point, it's a service that needs to be provided and while we can debate through what seems like an ethical mire, thousands of Irish women are being forced to go abroad for abortions. That to me is much more unsatisfactory than any form of argument/discourse which ultimately serves only to delay the introduction of abortion in Ireland.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your discussion here is partly incomplete. For example you say that the legality of abortion:

But to maintain this we need to refute the claim that the foetus, which clearly is physically impacted, is not a person or entity to whose interests we need have any regard; the foetus is not included in the “those” that you speak of. But rather than attempt to establish or justify this assumption, you immediately go on to say that:

It’s highly relevant - and by your own choice. You’ve staked your ground on a position which requires that the foetus not be a “person”; you can’t dismiss a challenge to your own foundational assumption as “irrelevant”.

And, where your argument is not incomplete, it’s just weak. For example in the following post you make the claim that:

But a foetus is clearly “living”, if only because it can die. And it’s an “individual” in at least this sense; it’s a coherent and self-contained organism which is genetically unique, and genetically distinct from both its father and its mother. So I don’t think you can expect to be taken seriously when you say that a foetus is “clearly” not a living individual; it’s arguable that it isn’t, but it’s certainly not clear that it isn’t.

I still think it's an irrelevant argument though, it serves only to complicate a simple issue. I don't believe the fetus to be a person, it is still in the developmental stage of growth and until born is still a fetus. Again to me it's quite clear while genetically unique, it cannot be said to be a person. And again you're introducing an argument where I don't see any, serving only to further bog down any progression in the debate. The fetus is quite clearly alive but is not a living individual. An individual is someone born and has all the rights of humanity conferred on them.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t say all this to have a go at you, but to underline the point I made in my reply to Benny_Cake; the rights-based discourse about abortion isn’t very satisfactory. It tends towards absolutism and fundamentalism, with people on both sides insisting on the acceptance of a philosophical viewpoint which, ultimately, they cannot demonstrate to be true and demanding the rejection of a philosophical viewpoint which, ultimately, they cannot show to be false.

Not to worry Peregrinus, I know you're not having a go at me. You're a reasonable guy, I simply believe you're being reasonable about something you have no right to say no to i.e. whether or not abortion should be allowed. If that marks me as fundamentalist then so be it.

It's unfortunate you don't find rights based discourse very satisfactory, I've found it to be the only way to clear up and simplify a situation that should not be complicated. If a woman wants an abortion in Ireland, she should not be forced to travel abroad or have to endure any form of government induced/sponsored pressure to reconsider. It's patronizing to assume she already hasn't considered her options and decided what's best for her.