Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Cabaal · 13-10-2015 12:38pm

volchitsa wrote: »

I think s/he has a point in that, outside of a vote (and in the US there hasn't been a vote on that subject, nor in many countries for that matter) the only way for people to make their opinions heard is by creating or joining a group.

So if people in the US aren't prepared to do that, they presumably are happy enough with the law as it is, ie abortion as per Roe-Wade. So they can't reasonably be counted upon as being pro-life in the Irish sense of the word (which would be considered an extreme form in just about any other country).

Lets not forget that in the USA atleast its not uncommon for companys and organisations to start "consumer groups" or lobby groups, so you can't take them at face value due to this.

For example, in one state in the USA there was a group called something along the lines of "Family for Fire Safety" and it was asking for fire proofing to be introduced on materials used in the home.

At face value the group looked like it was founded by concerned familys that were perhaps touched by home fires and this was portrayed on their website,

Upon further investigations it was found the only members of the group were chemical company's...the same company's that make chemicals that coat material to make it fire proof. The same chemicals that were later found to be cancer causing.

[EDIT]
I got the name completely wrong but here is the back story
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/05/industry-body-accused-over-links-discredited-us-fire-safety-group

It wasn't even concerned family, the group claimed to represent fire professionals, burn centres, doctors, fire departments and industry leaders advocating for the highest fire safety standards. But it only represented the chemical company's.

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 1:01pm

volchitsa wrote: »

I think s/he has a point in that, outside of a vote (and in the US there hasn't been a vote on that subject, nor in many countries for that matter) the only way for people to make their opinions heard is by creating or joining a group.

So if people in the US aren't prepared to do that, they presumably are happy enough with the law as it is, ie abortion as per Roe-Wade. So they can't reasonably be counted upon as being pro-life in the Irish sense of the word (which would be considered an extreme form in just about any other country).

That really makes no difference to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who do have an opinion on whatever will not be in a specific group who promote that opinion. The percentage of pro-choicers who happen to be in pro-choice advocacy groups is miniscule. What makes a few people in a group have more weight than 1000 times that number of the same opinion who don't hold an AGM or organise a rally?
I just don't think anybody's opinion is more important or more valid because they shout more I guess.

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 2:46pm

robdonn wrote: »

True, but the question wasn't about abortion in general, it was about "claiming that a fertilised egg is a human person with human rights".

TBH, my point was really just that there are more than the three reasons given, not that they are exclusive to vegetarianism, and whether they count as 'many many' is up to interpretation I suppose.

I don't really know what your point was at all then giving all those caveats. Pro-life may be most commonly a religious thing yes, nobody's arguing against that. But whether either pro-choice or pro-life is inherently anything to do with religion still remains unproven IMO.

Cabaal · 13-10-2015 2:59pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I just don't think anybody's opinion is more important or more valid because they shout more I guess.

I'm glad you agree with everyone here,
Everyone is entitled to have a voice on this issue, this is why we all just want a referendum on the issue

Everyone gets a single vote on the issue,

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 3:09pm

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm glad you agree with everyone here,
Everyone is entitled to have a voice on this issue, this is why we all just want a referendum on the issue

Everyone gets a single vote on the issue,

Sure, but this isn't where this conversation started. It was about whether pro-life is an "inherently" religious stance. Saying everybody is entitled to a vote doesn't mean the Guardian article's proclamation is in any way true when we have clear number that many millions of people don't fit with the absolute presented. And the number of identifiable groups on each side has pretty much nothing to do with anything either.

Cabaal · 13-10-2015 3:20pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sure, but this isn't where this conversation started. It was about whether pro-life is an "inherently" religious stance. Saying everybody is entitled to a vote doesn't mean the Guardian article's proclamation is in any way true when we have clear number that many millions of people don't fit with the absolute presented. And the number of identifiable groups on each side has pretty much nothing to do with anything either.

Well it does,
So called pro-life groups are like it or not overwhelmingly religious based,

Organizations that get the most airtime against issues of choice and freedom are also overwhelmingly religious as well. They are well funded as well from outside of the Irish state (Lolek Ltd + Youthdefense).

These well funded religious groups along with the church's control (and yes it does have some control) influence the Irish state so that this important topic is delayed going to a vote over and over, they intentionally ensure its a can kicked down the road.

The fact of the matter is that the topic should simply be put to a vote for the Irish people to decide on because right now there are people in their 40's that previously didn't have the ability to ever vote on this issue,

The current setup is outdated and does not represent the will of the Irish people anymore.

If as you claim again and again that abortion is murder then you have nothing to worry about if this issue is put to a vote, because surely you the no side that want no choice will win....right?

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 3:32pm

Cabaal wrote: »

So called pro-life groups are like it or not overwhelmingly religious based,

Never disputed. But I don't see why that's such a big deal. I don't disagree with them on abortion because they are religious. I disagree with them because I don't believe in ensoulment or personhood from conception. Should I similarly ignore the pro-choice arguments from atheists "because they are atheists"?

Cabaal wrote: »

If as you claim again and again that abortion is murder then you have nothing to worry about if this issue is put to a vote, because surely you the no side that want no choice will win....right?

I have never claimed (all) abortions are murder. And again, we are talking termination of the foetus here right? Not just termination of pregnancy. People get up in arms if somebody not viewed as 100% onside uses these terms interchangeably you know, but I'm pretty sure they'll let it slide for you.
I think it's murder beyond the age where I believe the foetus to have attained personhood, i.e. higher brain function.
Care to quote me saying otherwise? (you won't so save yourself the effort).

volchitsa · 13-10-2015 3:36pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That really makes no difference to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who do have an opinion on whatever will not be in a specific group who promote that opinion. The percentage of pro-choicers who happen to be in pro-choice advocacy groups is miniscule. What makes a few people in a group have more weight than 1000 times that number of the same opinion who don't hold an AGM or organise a rally?
I just don't think anybody's opinion is more important or more valid because they shout more I guess.

The problem is that some people's opinions are (or should be) more valid - the families directly involved in a decision about whether or not they need to terminate a particular pregnancy.

No-one else, apart from the medical team, should be involved in taking this decision for them. The problem in Ireland is people thinking they are entitled to judge other peopel's provate lives. Oh, except when you've got the money to travel, then you're entitled, in Irish law, to "kill" all the "babies" you want and no-one gives a hoot.

Money gets you legal privacy here. Strange, when you think about it. It's not very democratic, for a republic.

volchitsa · 13-10-2015 3:38pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Never disputed. But I don't see why that's such a big deal. I don't disagree with them on abortion because they are religious. I disagree with them because I don't believe in ensoulment or personhood from conception. Should I similarly ignore the pro-choice arguments from atheists "because they are atheists"?I have never claimed (all) abortions are murder. And again, we are talking termination of the foetus here right? Not just termination of pregnancy. People get up in arms if somebody not viewed as 100% onside uses these terms interchangeably you know, but I'm pretty sure they'll let it slide for you.
I think it's murder beyond the age where I believe the foetus to have attained personhood, i.e. higher brain function.
Care to quote me saying otherwise? (you won't so save yourself the effort).

So about 20 weeks then? Is that your view?

(Only it's not as easy as you seem to think to remember what every single poster has declared as their own personal view on the matter. And some are also extremely reluctant to do so anyway. So one does find oneself guessing - possibly wrongly.)

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 3:42pm

volchitsa wrote: »

So about 20 weeks then? Is that your view?

(Only it's not as easy as you seem to think to remember what every single poster has declared as their own personal view on the matter. And some are also extremely reluctant to do so anyway. So one does find oneself guessing - possibly wrongly.)

Well Cabaal is convinced I have said "abortion is murder" "again and again". That doesn't sound like much of an accident so I'd like to know where he's getting this conclusion from other than "you don't agree with me 100% therefore you bomb abortion clinics" which I've had here before.

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 3:46pm

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem is that some people's opinions are (or should be) more valid - the families directly involved in a decision about whether or not they need to terminate a particular pregnancy.

No-one else, apart from the medical team, should be involved in taking this decision for them. The problem in Ireland is people thinking they are entitled to judge other peopel's provate lives. Oh, except when you've got the money to travel, then you're entitled, in Irish law, to "kill" all the "babies" you want and no-one gives a hoot.

Money gets you legal privacy here. Strange, when you think about it. It's not very democratic, for a republic.

Well to be fair, if you killed your 1 day old baby you couldn't claim it was a private matter and nobody's business. It's down to the definition of whether that thing is a person or not, which is what most of this discussion is about. Once we have decided that the foetus (at whatever age) is not a person then, yes, it is a private matter.
I don't think we ever finished analysing the "right to travel" here due to the thread split, but the last point I had made on that is that the amendment doesn't actually say you'd be exempt from prosecution when you return from an abortion, just that you are not hindered from travel for whatever reason.

volchitsa · 13-10-2015 3:57pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well to be fair, if you killed your 1 day old baby you couldn't claim it was a private matter and nobody's business. It's down to the definition of whether that thing is a person or not, which is what most of this discussion is about. Once we have decided that the foetus (at whatever age) is not a person then, yes, it is a private matter.
I don't think we ever finished analysing the "right to travel" here due to the thread split, but the last point I had made on that is that the amendment doesn't actually say you'd be exempt from prosecution when you return from an abortion, just that you are not hindered from travel for whatever reason.

Well this is the thing - you can't legally travel specifically in order to kill a one-day old baby either, can you? And that's just one example of the sort of exemption that leads one to believe that even "pro-life" posters don't really think abortion is murder.

You didn't say what developmental stage you consider that the higher brain function you require occurs at.

And also, since we're teasing these details out, what do you think would be the right level of punishment for a woman who "murders" her fetus past this point? As for any other pre-planned deliberate murder? Or less? If so, why?

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 4:08pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Well this is the thing - you can't legally travel specifically in order to kill a one-day old baby either, can you? And that's just one example of the sort of exemption that leads one to believe that even "pro-life" posters don't really think abortion is murder.

You didn't say what developmental stage you consider that the higher brain function you require occurs at.

And also, since we're teasing these details out, what do you think would be the right level of punishment for a woman who "murders" her fetus past this point? As for any other pre-planned deliberate murder? Or less? If so, why?

The foetal brain appears to "work" like a human at 22-24 weeks.
I don't see any specific difference between "inside human" and "outside human", no, and I don't subscribe to this degrees of humanity idea, so I don't see why the charge should be different.
In return, do you believe a foetus one day from term should be terminated electively?

lazygal · 13-10-2015 4:17pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

In return, do you believe a foetus one day from term should be terminated electively?

At that stage the options for delivering a live or dead foetus are c section or vaginal delivery. I don't see why a foetus would need to be killed before delivery one day before term. My first child was delivered a week before term, alive, via elective c section. Termination of pregnancy, as Ms Y found out, does not mean killing a foetus is every case.

volchitsa · 13-10-2015 4:18pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The foetal brain appears to "work" like a human at 22-24 weeks.
I don't see any specific difference between "inside human" and "outside human", no, and I don't subscribe to this degrees of humanity idea, so I don't see why the charge should be different.
In return, do you believe a foetus one day from term should be terminated electively?

No, I don't. But ending a pregnancy a day before term just means a slightly early birth. I had one pregnancy ended nearly ten days before term so my husband could be present at the birth - was that attempted murder? (The baby was fine and is now a healthy, gorgeous 19 year old girl, though I suffered a bad tear, which in hindsight may have been evidence that she wasn't entirely ready to come out...)

But I think that a fetus is only entitled to remain inside its mother with her consent, so if a non viable fetus is removed because she decides to end the pregnancy (and let's keep a grip here - this doesn't suddenly happen late in pregnancy for frivolous reasons) then that is not murder. Whereas you're saying if this happens after 22 weeks the woman should be tried for murder - aren't you?

What about a woman whose health was being severely damaged by the fetus - would that be a manslaughter charge? Or self defence?

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 7:34pm

lazygal wrote: »

At that stage the options for delivering a live or dead foetus are c section or vaginal delivery. I don't see why a foetus would need to be killed before delivery one day before term. My first child was delivered a week before term, alive, via elective c section. Termination of pregnancy, as Ms Y found out, does not mean killing a foetus is every case.

volchitsa wrote: »

No, I don't. But ending a pregnancy a day before term just means a slightly early birth. I had one pregnancy ended nearly ten days before term so my husband could be present at the birth - was that attempted murder? (The baby was fine and is now a healthy, gorgeous 19 year old girl, though I suffered a bad tear, which in hindsight may have been evidence that she wasn't entirely ready to come out...)

But I think that a fetus is only entitled to remain inside its mother with her consent, so if a non viable fetus is removed because she decides to end the pregnancy (and let's keep a grip here - this doesn't suddenly happen late in pregnancy for frivolous reasons) then that is not murder. Whereas you're saying if this happens after 22 weeks the woman should be tried for murder - aren't you?

These are both deliberately skipping the question. Maybe 1 person in 1,000,000,000 would want to terminate their foetus the day before it was due to be born, but does that mean we ignore the possibility? What about a week before? A month then? And sure, it could be delivered perfectly healthy.
But if you want any time elective foetus termination then you have to expressly allow it. Not say it's unlikely or the baby could still have been delivered healthy.

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 7:37pm

volchitsa wrote: »

What about a woman whose health was being severely damaged by the fetus - would that be a manslaughter charge? Or self defence?

Of course it is self-defence. Even children can't be held legally responsible for crimes so I don't know why you need to make the hyperbolic suggestion that it'd be a manslaughter charge. Get a grip.

lazygal · 13-10-2015 8:05pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

These are both deliberately skipping the question. Maybe 1 person in 1,000,000,000 would want to terminate their foetus the day before it was due to be born, but does that mean we ignore the possibility? What about a week before? A month then? And sure, it could be delivered perfectly healthy.
But if you want any time elective foetus termination then you have to expressly allow it. Not say it's unlikely or the baby could still have been delivered healthy.

Is termination of a pregnancy always killing a child? Or can termination involve delivery of a live baby? Do you think doctors would kill a viable foetus rather than deliver it alive to terminate a pregnancy?

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 8:38pm

lazygal wrote: »

Is termination of a pregnancy always killing a child? Or can termination involve delivery of a live baby? Do you think doctors would kill a viable foetus rather than deliver it alive to terminate a pregnancy?

Still avoiding the question. You know full well I'm talking about termination of the foetus (the clue is in the bit where I said "terminate the foetus"). Why are you deliberately trying to divert the conversation to termination of the pregnancy without the destruction of the foetus?

lazygal · 13-10-2015 8:48pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Still avoiding the question. You know full well I'm talking about termination of the foetus (the clue is in the bit where I said "terminate the foetus"). Why are you deliberately trying to divert the conversation to termination of the pregnancy without the destruction of the foetus?

Because that's what happens in Ireland. A foetus is delivered live when possible. Miss Y could tell you about that. Why the focus on later term abortion? Does it get progressively worse to terminate a pregnancy as gestation proceeds?

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 8:56pm

lazygal wrote: »

Because that's what happens in Ireland. A foetus is delivered live when possible. Miss Y could tell you about that. Why the focus on later term abortion? Does it get progressively worse to terminate a pregnancy as gestation proceeds?

Ah right. So whenever anybody is asked what their position is on abortion, the correct answer is to simply state the Irish legal position on abortion. Got it now.
I'm not "focusing" on anything, but you apparently think no rules at all are required for at what term elective termination of the foetus should be permitted.
Well, either that or you just don't want to tell us.

lazygal · 13-10-2015 8:58pm

I favour the Canadian model of no legislation at all on abortion. It is a medical, not a legal or moral or philosophical, matter between a girl or woman and her doctor. No one should have the right to force anyone to maintain a pregnancy against a woman or girl's wishes. I don't care why someone wants an abortion, I want them to be able to access it safely and legally.

oscarBravo · 13-10-2015 9:10pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You know full well I'm talking about termination of the foetus...

Yes. You're talking about termination of the foetus. You.

The rest of us are talking about the right of a woman to decide whether or not to be pregnant, which is the fundamental right at question here.

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 9:32pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. You're talking about termination of the foetus. You.

The rest of us are talking about the right of a woman to decide whether or not to be pregnant, which is the fundamental right at question here.

So you refuse to answer also. Grand. Join the club.

oscarBravo · 13-10-2015 9:48pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you refuse to answer also. Grand. Join the club.

If the membership criterion is "refusing to be drawn down rhetorical rabbit holes", I'm already there.

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 9:52pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the membership criterion is "refusing to be drawn down rhetorical rabbit holes", I'm already there.

If you think termination of the foetus isn't a valid topic for debate in a thread about abortion then we've gone though the looking glass alright.

oscarBravo · 13-10-2015 10:07pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If you think termination of the foetus isn't a valid topic for debate in a thread about abortion then we've gone though the looking glass alright.

It's a valid topic, but it's only the valid topic if the goal is to divert attention from the key topic, which is a woman's right to bodily integrity.

Dan_Solo · 13-10-2015 10:14pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a valid topic, but it's only the valid topic if the goal is to divert attention from the key topic, which is a woman's right to bodily integrity.

Which is in itself only a valid excuse to refuse to answer the question if you think bodily integrity is the only consideration that is pertinent to the discussion. Which is grand and dandy but not everybody agrees, as evidenced by almost every last country on earth having some restriction on abortion or pregnancy or the foetus.

Absolam · 14-10-2015 2:44am

volchitsa wrote: »

I think s/he has a point in that, outside of a vote (and in the US there hasn't been a vote on that subject, nor in many countries for that matter) the only way for people to make their opinions heard is by creating or joining a group.
So if people in the US aren't prepared to do that, they presumably are happy enough with the law as it is, ie abortion as per Roe-Wade. So they can't reasonably be counted upon as being pro-life in the Irish sense of the word (which would be considered an extreme form in just about any other country).

That seems at odds with the evidence from the Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics statistics to be fair; 22% of nonreligious unaffiliated Americans describe themselves as "pro-life on abortion". That's 22% of 22.8% of 318.9 million people; about 1.6 million people. There's no evidence presented so far that even a tenth of that number are part of any secular pro-life organisation in the US, so I don't think the argument holds any water to be honest.

Absolam · 14-10-2015 3:08am

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem is that some people's opinions are (or should be) more valid - the families directly involved in a decision about whether or not they need to terminate a particular pregnancy.

Why should they be more valid? If anything, shouldn't they be less valid as they have a personal bias which could interfere with their choice over whether or not to terminate someone else's particular life?
I find it difficult to see why whether or not we allow someones life to be ended, and in what circumstances, should not be a decision for our society as a whole.

Seeking to restrict that choice to a particular group smacks of trying to influence the pool in favour of your personally desired outcome to be honest.

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Comments