The Right To Life?

LegacyUser

Im not sure if this is the correct forum for this thread but Ill throw it out there and we'll see

Just listening to comment on the radio about the woman who is seeking the permission to use the embryos fathered by her estranged husband and the womans view that they are her children and she should be allowed to become pregneant with them.

My question is if a judge rules that they are this womans potential offspring and they, if he rules that these embryos have the right to life, does that also mean they have the right to legal representation as every person in the state has??

Iv got the feeling( and Im by no means of the imagiation too clued up on this sort of thing) that what ever the ruling is on this matter,it will have quite significant constitutional implacations for this country.

Anybody have any thoughts on this matter....

p.s sorry if this is the wrong board for this thread!!

K1

Nevyn

I can't really see them having a right to life, where will that lead to someone being ordered by the court to gestate them ?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054956410

here's another thread on the same topic...

it's in christianity though

ArthurDent

There are all sorts of legal ramifications to this case - way beyond what is clearly a difficult private issue.
For example if the definition of "unborn" is actually arrived at and includes fertilised , but not yet implanted eggs, then the protection afforded to the unborn and their "right to life" will have major consequences for IVF treatments (all fertilised eggs having to be implanted potentially) and the use of morning after pill and the coil methods of contraception ( by preventing implantation - which could then be seen as preventing a legally protected entity from its right to life)

Of course a lot of this could have been prevented by the politicians getting off their collective @rses and actually defining what is legally and constutionally meant by "unborn" - but that would have meant tackling an issue that no political party had an appetite for IMO.

Red Alert

There's the very serious matter now that if the woman taking this case wins, the husband will probably have to pay financial support for the 'new' child, which he had decided he did not wish to have. This to me sets a very dangerous precedent, as it could in theory allow the woman to blackmail him with the financial burden.

Moriarty

I saw on the front page of one of the rags in a newsagent yesterday that this woman wants the court to order the estranged husband to provide full child support aswell.

Whatever about the original issue of her being allowed to use the embryo or not, I find that pretty appalling considering the situtation.

conor-mr2

Id have to agree with you Moriarty.

Legal and life issues aside, Im disgusted to think that she should expect the father to provide child support also.

mel123

'The Husband' does not want this child, simple as, and i think its quite understandable...he doesnt love the ex wife any more and they are seperated. To bring a child into the world under these circumstances i think is just completely unfair, both on the child and the father. We hear enough in the papers about Fathers not having anything to do with their children blah blah blah, this is just going to add to the statistics. I think what this woman is doing is completely selfish and she doesnt care about anybody but herself. I am appalled that this has made it as far as it has.

Chakar

Its possible that the court might let her have the embryos and rule that the husband doesn't not have to pay child support because he didn't want it explicitly in the first place.

Is there any more news about this case anyhow?

The Corinthian

kaiser1 wrote:

Just listening to comment on the radio about the woman who is seeking the permission to use the embryos fathered by her estranged husband and the womans view that they are her children and she should be allowed to become pregneant with them.

Are you sure this is her argument? It would seem a terribly cynical one given that IVF generally involves the fertilisation of numerous eggs and throwing away all but the most promising.

Were one to reverse the situation and suggest that the father entered a new relationship and sought to bring one of the embryos with his new partner, where would people stand then?

Chakar wrote:

Its possible that the court might let her have the embryos and rule that the husband doesn't not have to pay child support because he didn't want it explicitly in the first place.

I actually don’t know if one could actually legally exempt the father from child support given present legislation.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you sure this is her argument? It would seem a terribly cynical one given that IVF generally involves the fertilisation of numerous eggs and throwing away all but the most promising.

It is actually her argument believe it or not and I feel it is quite distasteful for exactly that reason TC. She has seemingly "begged" that her children be given the right to life.

I seriously doubt this woman didn't realise what happens during normal IVF (where as you say a number of eggs are fertalised but not expected to be implanted or if implanted to take hold).

To me it seems like she is playing the "abortion card" to drum up sympathy and to win her case. One would question if this women wants a child for the right reasons.

Jackie laughlin

It seems that many of those who talk of "a right to life" don't understand what a "right" means. A right attaches to a person and - taking the rights of others into account - it can be vindicated.

"Politicians" did not get us into this mess. SPUC did, with the help of FF and FG who agreed to let the "Pro-Life Referendum" proceed despite the known and obvious problems. The Labour Party showed SPUC the door. Garret Fitzgerald has since acknowledged his mistake.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

It seems that many of those who talk of "a right to life" don't understand what a "right" means. A right attaches to a person and - taking the rights of others into account - it can be vindicated.

Actually those from both the pro-Life and pro-Choice side of the argument understand what a "right" means, they simply don’t agree on it’s application and parameters in this case. Accusing either side of simply being ‘wrong’ is a gross oversimplification.

"Politicians" did not get us into this mess. SPUC did, with the help of FF and FG who agreed to let the "Pro-Life Referendum" proceed despite the known and obvious problems. The Labour Party showed SPUC the door. Garret Fitzgerald has since acknowledged his mistake.

Abortion in Ireland, and pretty much everywhere else, has been a question of uncomfortable compromises, in many cases full of logical holes as they seek to find a balance between two completely incompatible rationales.

I really don’t see where the Labour party showed SPUC any door of merit, it’s doubtful that SPUC would have sought their support seriously any more than they would that of the SWP today and the Labour party was a bit of a mess in the 1980’s, so it wasn’t a major loss to them, TBH.

As for what Fitzgerald has said, perhaps, but he’s said a lot of other things over the years with the benefit of hindsight.

Whether people like it or not, remember or not, organisations such as SPUC did reflect the views of a majority of the electorate in the 1980’s, so really we shouldn’t be blaming them, or the politicians for that matter, for the mess we’re in, but ourselves.

Philistine

Didn't both parties sign a contract, in good faith, stating that they both need to consent to the use of the embyro's ? What's the point of a contract if one party decides that its going to court to go against the express wishes of the other ? And why should one be forced to pay for something it doesn't want or agree with ? Irish courts always choose in favour of women. Won't be surprised with the outcome !

The Corinthian

Philistine wrote:

What's the point of a contract if one party decides that its going to court to go against the express wishes of the other ?

We call that divorce.

bonkey

Philistine wrote:

Didn't both parties sign a contract, in good faith, stating that they both need to consent to the use of the embyro's ?

I admit to not being fully au fait with the case, so....

Did they?

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
All human life from conception cannot be protected. A right to life therefore does not exist. It is a misuse of the word "right".

I have never met anyone who was in favour of abortion. The moral argument is about reaching a conclusion on the age of the foetus after which it must be protected, i.e. a right is conferred.

I always have problems with blaming "society". It evades responsibility. SPUC did in fact ask the Labour Party to support their referendum proposal. They were shown the door not because the party was pro-choice but because it saw that placing an item such as the one proposed in the constitution would create a mess.

I think it reflects well on anyone who with hindsight admits to a mistake.

SPUC scored a dramatic own goal. Abortion was not on the political agenda. they put it there.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

All human life from conception cannot be protected. A right to life therefore does not exist. It is a misuse of the word "right".

I think you should explain that differently as you’re making no logical sense.

I have never met anyone who was in favour of abortion. The moral argument is about reaching a conclusion on the age of the foetus after which it must be protected, i.e. a right is conferred.

Actually the moral argument is more complex than that as it also examines our definition of humanity, equality and of what represents a fundamental right in the first place.

I always have problems with blaming "society". It evades responsibility.

Actually the Irish are very good at evading responsibility. Up until recently most things seemed to be as a result of “800 years of oppression”. And the whole idea that you can blame the legal ambiguity of the abortion issue on SPUC is laughable as it ignores the very public opinions that supported SPUC in the first place.

SPUC did in fact ask the Labour Party to support their referendum proposal. They were shown the door not because the party was pro-choice but because it saw that placing an item such as the one proposed in the constitution would create a mess.

I think at this stage you really should back up such claims.

I think it reflects well on anyone who with hindsight admits to a mistake.

You misunderstand; my point is I’ve heard him say a lot of things. He’s bound to get something right too from time to time.

samb

mel123 wrote:

'The Husband' does not want this child, simple as, and i think its quite understandable...he doesnt love the ex wife any more and they are seperated. To bring a child into the world under these circumstances i think is just completely unfair, both on the child and the father. We hear enough in the papers about Fathers not having anything to do with their children blah blah blah, this is just going to add to the statistics. I think what this woman is doing is completely selfish and she doesnt care about anybody but herself. I am appalled that this has made it as far as it has.

Well said, it is simple as that. Can you imagine if this was the other way around. If the man wanted to force the woman to be implanted with embryos based on thier 'right to life'...sounds like that woman is a *** **** and probably wouldn't even allow him access to see this (or these) child she forced him to father, while taking his money.

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
I take it that you won't hear anything positive said about either the Labour Party or Garrett Fitzgerald.

Millions of fertilised human eggs are sluiced away naturally every day without anyone even being aware of it. If we talk about a human right from the moment of conception, mad conclusions clearly follow.

Of course the moral argument about an age at which we recognise the presence of a person is complex and involves notions of equality among many other human considerations. It also requires due seriousness, recognition that any decision is provisional and a willingness to change as the debate progresses. For example the permitted number of weeks in Britain, I would argue, needs to be revised downwards.

I'm quite pleased that SPUC placed abortion on the Irish agenda. It needed to be addressed and still needs to be addressed. However, the current mess arises out of SPUC's flawed constitutional initiative and everyone who voted for it shares the blame.

I don't disagree that we Irish have a habit of evading responsibility and blaming others or undefined groups. You are of course right that nations didn't even exist 800 years ago! A more modern example is the tendency to say, "the politicians", rather than which politician or which party. However, this is straying from the point.

This court case may contribute in a small way to clearing up a mess.

jimmycrackcorm

It'll be very interesting to see how this pans out. In theory the judge could simply say that that the contract holds that both parties must agree to allow implantation and hence the status quo holds. If the Woman argues the case for the right to life for the embyros then surely it must stand to reason that it is illegal to hold them in suspension regardless of any contract and the whole IVF thing is invalid from the begining; i.e. Freezing embyros prevents them from attaining their life.

In any case isn't here a very high chance of failure in IVF?

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Corinthian,
I take it that you won't hear anything positive said about either the Labour Party or Garrett Fitzgerald.

Get over yourself. I’ve no problem giving credit to either, but neither really have anything to be overly proud about with regard to the Abortion question in Ireland.

Millions of fertilised human eggs are sluiced away naturally every day without anyone even being aware of it. If we talk about a human right from the moment of conception, mad conclusions clearly follow.

By that logic we should not attempt to save the lives of premature children, or infants who are sick and simply let nature take its course. The argument that “it’s natural” effectively falls apart as that is precisely what modern science and medicine seeks to reverse.

Of course the moral argument about an age at which we recognise the presence of a person is complex and involves notions of equality among many other human considerations. It also requires due seriousness, recognition that any decision is provisional and a willingness to change as the debate progresses. For example the permitted number of weeks in Britain, I would argue, needs to be revised downwards.

Actually the moral and philosophical question is more complex than that. To begin with you are attempting to base your position on the premise that human life is indeed sacrosanct to begin with (as pro-Lifers would) but then add another premise that a foetus is not actually human until long after conception (as pro-Lifers would disagree). Either or both of those assumptions could be incorrect - and that’s just to begin with.

I'm quite pleased that SPUC placed abortion on the Irish agenda. It needed to be addressed and still needs to be addressed. However, the current mess arises out of SPUC's flawed constitutional initiative and everyone who voted for it shares the blame.

Actually there have been a number of initiatives, and much of the confusion comes from the subsequent information referenda, in which the then Government and not SPUC proposed, and which you appear to have ignored. Your opinion appears to be based on a selective interpretation of what has happened in Ireland over the abortion issue.

If this is not the case I would ask you to explain citing historical facts rather than a fuzzy opinion.

You are of course right that nations didn't even exist 800 years ago!

I didn’t say that.

Jackie laughlin

I'll leave Labour and Garret Fitzgerald out as they seem to upset you.

I'm not at all saying that because something is natural, it must be endured. Progress is about overcoming what was once regarded as "natural". No, what I said was that if a RIGHT to life exists from conception, we must strive to ensure that all fertilised eggs be saved. Now, surely that is a mad position.

I do happen to think that people and their lives are "sacred". I also think that personhood develops and that it's impossible to say with accuracy and certainty when a person exists. This is where moral debate begins.

I didn't deal with the mess of amendments downstream from SPUC's original misjudgement. The latter gave rise to the former.


It's true that you never said that nations didn't exist 800 years ago. I assumed this was at the root of your point about the nonsense of 800 years of oppression. Anyway, it's not a good example of the evasion of responsibility.

dermot_sheehan

Tricky issue for judge to decide. The state is basically urging him to decide it on private law (contract law) grounds to stop the sticky issue of constitutional abortion law rearing its head.

Problem is of course Constitutional law generally overrides private law and the husband is arguing he has a constitutional right not to be forced to be a father against his wishes.

It could go either way. The judge could view the consent to use the embyro's as binding, can't be withdrawn, and the right not to be a father waived when he signed the consent form.

The court could rule that the husband could as a matter of contract law withdraw consent, but because of the duty imposed on the state by art. 30.3.3, and the state including the courts, the court must vindicate the unborn child's rights by implanting. If the court however holds that the unborn child protected by art. 40.3.3 encompases an unimplanted embryo, this would cause great problems, if nothing else rendering the morning after pill unconstitutional.

The court could also view the consent as withdrawable, or else the gurantee of the right to procreate in the constitution (Murray v. Ireland) also encompases a right not to procreate , similar to the right to join a union conferring a right not to join a union (Meskell v. CIE), and the "unborn child" referred to in 40.3.3 not including an unimplanted embryo.

What ever decision the high court makes, i can see this being appealed to the supreme court.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'll leave Labour and Garret Fitzgerald out as they seem to upset you.

Not at all, don’t be ridiculous. I have however asked you twice to back up your claims about them and SPUC with factual data.

I'm not at all saying that because something is natural, it must be endured. Progress is about overcoming what was once regarded as "natural". No, what I said was that if a RIGHT to life exists from conception, we must strive to ensure that all fertilised eggs be saved. Now, surely that is a mad position.

Why? We actually try to do that where possible in fertility treatment already.

I do happen to think that people and their lives are "sacred".

Is there a reason for his or is this simply an axiom?

I also think that personhood develops and that it's impossible to say with accuracy and certainty when a person exists. This is where moral debate begins.

On what basis do you define a person then? Try not to choose some arbitrary conditions.

I didn't deal with the mess of amendments downstream from SPUC's original misjudgement. The latter gave rise to the former.

Again feel free to back up your claims with facts.

It's true that you never said that nations didn't exist 800 years ago. I assumed this was at the root of your point about the nonsense of 800 years of oppression. Anyway, it's not a good example of the evasion of responsibility.

It’s an excellent example. Up until fairly recently Britain was essentially used as a catch-all excuse for why Ireland was a mess. Nowadays we prefer to blame the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, it couldn’t be us, could it?

Scotty #

If the wife wins this case does/should it mean that in future scenarios like this, the "husband" could insist the "wife" be implanted with eggs? ie. If she has the right to use "their" embryos against his will then shouldn't the husband have the same right? And as he can't gestate the embryos wouldn't she be legally obliged to (under the terms of their contract)??

fly_agaric

Can't see too many men being very keen on IVF (or should I say IVF with freezing of embryos?) if she wins this case.

But perhaps the govt. will be able to make some new law to force them to hand over joy-juice so as not to deprive women of their "rights".:D

Jackie laughlin

Gabhain,
Excellent posting. Thank you.
The sooner this gets to the Supreme Court the better.

Corinthian,
Fertility treatment produces many unused fertilised eggs which are destroyed. One of the more bizzarre methods of destruction is to plant them so low down in the reproductive system that they die. (Evasion of responsibility.) Similarly many others are destroyed by the "morning after" pill. However millions die unknown in monthly cycles. The point is that if they had a RIGHT to life, the state would be required to try to save them. I repeat, this is utter madness!

I've not the slightest intention of writing a very long essay for you on why the human person deserves particular respect from which rights arise. I take it you disagree.

The age at which a foetus receives recognition of personhood will be determined by debate, it can never be established with absolute certainty. It will not be as late as full term and it will not be as early as conception. Anyone arguing for those dates can be dismissed. Moral people will try to tackle the real issue.

I think you need to make up your mind whether you believe in spreading the blame or finding the culprits. You refuse to blame SPUC, preferring to blame society and yet you attack those who blame the British or the Church!

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Fertility treatment produces many unused fertilised eggs which are destroyed. One of the more bizzarre methods of destruction is to plant them so low down in the reproductive system that they die. (Evasion of responsibility.) Similarly many others are destroyed by the "morning after" pill. However millions die unknown in monthly cycles. The point is that if they had a RIGHT to life, the state would be required to try to save them. I repeat, this is utter madness!

Stop evading my point. Whether many die naturally is irrelevant, as we do not use this as a determinant for the right to life in other cases. Were we to accept your point then we would need to adopt a position that condones high infant mortality because, without medical assistance, it would be considerably higher than it is now.

I suggest you address the hole in your argument rather than evading the rebuttal and repeating yourself ad nausea in the hope that no one will notice.

I've not the slightest intention of writing a very long essay for you on why the human person deserves particular respect from which rights arise. I take it you disagree.

That’s an easy response. Saves you the trouble of backing up your assertions.

The age at which a foetus receives recognition of personhood will be determined by debate

Which, ironically, you’ve no intention of engaging in.

I think you need to make up your mind whether you believe in spreading the blame or finding the culprits. You refuse to blame SPUC, preferring to blame society and yet you attack those who blame the British or the Church!

You’ve made a number of claims about SPUC and a number of the political parties in this country and I have ask you on a number of occasions to back those claims up with historical proof. Am I to take it you’re simply spouting personal opinion?

oscarBravo

gabhain7 wrote:

Tricky issue for judge to decide. The state is basically urging him to decide it on private law (contract law) grounds to stop the sticky issue of constitutional abortion law rearing its head.

I didn't think the state was allowed to urge a judge to do anything, except by legal argument in a case in which it is directly involved. Do you have a source for this?

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
Far rom evading the issue, I've addressed the "naturalistic" argument. There is no point in repeating it. You'll find it above.

Of course refusing to write you a long essay is an easy way out. I did, however, ask if you agreed with my point about respect being due to all persons. If you had said, yes, it would obviate any need you might have of my argument. If you had said, no, I would have stopped talking to you!

I simply said that SPUC originated the Pro-life amendment and were responsible for it. Would even SPUC dispute this?

I'm relying on my memory of events in which I took part to tell you that the Labour Party did not entertain the SPUC initiative.

I've no particular expertise when it comes to establishing a point up to which abortion is permitted. I would listen to arguments and assess information. I'm not unwilling to enter the debate. I am persuaded that the present British limit should be lowered.

Yes, I'm offering opinions, informed opinions. Isn't everyone.

Have you a view on the whether a right to life exists from conception?

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Far rom evading the issue, I've addressed the "naturalistic" argument. There is no point in repeating it. You'll find it above.

You’ve not, you simply repeated your original point without addressing my rebuttal.

Of course refusing to write you a long essay is an easy way out. I did, however, ask if you agreed with my point about respect being due to all persons. If you had said, yes, it would obviate any need you might have of my argument.

Respect to all persons is a very flexible concept. To begin with even if we accept that principle we may judge that some are not persons and thus not afford them respect. Additionally we may argue that the rights of some may supersede the rights of others, even if they are persons worthy of respect.

So when discussing the moral argument it is not simply a case of “reaching a conclusion on the age of the foetus after which it must be protected” as you suggested, but potentially far more complex.

If you had said, no, I would have stopped talking to you!

You really do like looking for these easy outs, don’t you?

I simply said that SPUC originated the Pro-life amendment and were responsible for it. Would even SPUC dispute this?

I am challenging your original assertions that the present legislative ambiguity is entirely down to SPUC. It is your interpretation that you need to back up and simply because they may have originated the Pro-life amendment and were responsible for it does not do so.

I'm relying on my memory of events in which I took part to tell you that the Labour Party did not entertain the SPUC initiative.

I’ve already said that the Labour party’s reaction to the SPUC initiative is pretty irrelevant. The Labour party was no more going to support them that the Socialist Workers party would.

I've no particular expertise when it comes to establishing a point up to which abortion is permitted. I would listen to arguments and assess information. I'm not unwilling to enter the debate. I am persuaded that the present British limit should be lowered.

You’ve already entered the debate, you stated your position that viewed the foetus as being a person after a particular period and I asked what were your criteria for judging this period is? You’ve been avoiding further debate ever since.

Yes, I'm offering opinions, informed opinions. Isn't everyone.

You began by stating facts - are they simply unsubstantiated opinions now?

Have you a view on the whether a right to life exists from conception?

Of course I have a view. Actually a few of them, but I think you should answer what I asked you before I allow you to sidestep any further.

Het-Field

Remeber te right to life overides all in this country except the welfare of the moter. Inthis case the womens life is not at any pysical risk, so draw your own conclusions

Jackie laughlin

Yes, Corinthian, I am quite fond of an easy life. I debate only with those who interest me and challenge my thinking.

You merely obfuscate. The moral issue is indeed simple. We have no option but to decide an age at which a foetus is accorded a right to life.

I would refuse to debate with someone who does not respect all persons. Indeed I wouldn't stay in the same room.

You're running scared. I'm convinced you believe in protecting human life from conception. Go on, confirm or deny.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Yes, Corinthian, I am quite fond of an easy life. I debate only with those who interest me and challenge my thinking.

TBH it looks far more like you avoid debate with anyone who challenges your thinking. I’ve challenged you repeatedly to back up what you’re saying and you’ve repeatedly sidestepped doing so.

You merely obfuscate. The moral issue is indeed simple. We have no option but to decide an age at which a foetus is accorded a right to life.

There’s nothing simple about ethics or morality. Indeed, it is the need to accommodate your type of simplistic ‘black and white’ reasoning that appears to have gotten us into this mess in the first place. What you call obfuscation is challenge - I’m simply pointing out where your logic is faulty.

I would refuse to debate with someone who does not respect all persons. Indeed I wouldn't stay in the same room.

Yeah. Whatever. Get off your high horse. You look silly.

You're running scared. I'm convinced you believe in protecting human life from conception. Go on, confirm or deny.

Is that the best you can come up with? “He’s against me so he must be a pro-lifer?”

Perhaps it hadn’t occurred to you that I might consider it human life from conception, but still not afford it a right to life? As much as I envy the simplicity of the World you choose to live in, my purpose in challenging you has nothing to do with being either pro life or pro choice, but more as a result that it irritates me to hear people pontificate on things they’ve not even thought through (or perhaps lack the capacity to do so).

oscarBravo

The Corinthian wrote:

Yeah. Whatever. Get off your high horse. You look silly.

Careful, now.

Jackie laughlin

Here we go again. I'll ignore the abuse.

Have I considered it? Have I considered it? Look here, MY position is that human life exists from conception but it does not warrant and cannot be guaranteed a right to life. You imply that that might be your position also. Is it?

Who ever said that moral debate was simple? We are faced with a simple OBJECTIVE: to decide on a number of weeks. The moral debate preceding that decision will be complex and fraught.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Here we go again. I'll ignore the abuse.

You’re very thin skinned if you consider that abuse.

Have I considered it? Have I considered it? Look here, MY position is that human life exists from conception but it does not warrant and cannot be guaranteed a right to life.

Fair enough. Then are you accepting a more utilitarian moral framework than the more traditional Judea-Christian one? That is to say that rights are afforded to the more valid person rather than equally and indiscriminately.

You imply that that might be your position also. Is it?

Did I? Maybe. TBH, I don’t really have a personal position on it.

Who ever said that moral debate was simple? We are faced with a simple OBJECTIVE: to decide on a number of weeks. The moral debate preceding that decision will be complex and fraught.

Hold on - you admit that the moral debate is not simple, and then skip over said debate and boil it all down to a simple question?

The very premise that one may set arbitrary conditions for someone to be considered worthy of life in the first place is a pretty complex and dangerous one even before we consider what those arbitrary conditions are. Of those, all you’ve presented is the rather thin argument of nature, which if followed to its conclusion would see most of us, and our mothers, naturally dead.

Additionally we must consider then the moral principle set - which some humans are, for whatever reason, without right to life. No doubt there are plenty of other wasteful eaters we could identify in society armed with such an ethic.

So, not simple at all.

ISAW

The Corinthian wrote:

Perhaps it hadn’t occurred to you that I might consider it human life from conception, but still not afford it a right to life? As much as I envy the simplicity of the World you choose to live in, my purpose in challenging you has nothing to do with being either pro life or pro choice, but more as a result that it irritates me to hear people pontificate on things they’ve not even thought through (or perhaps lack the capacity to do so).

It has occurred to me. Do you consider a fertilised egg as unborn life?

It you do then the constitution actually says that it has a right to life. If you don't then please tell me when unborn life begins.

ISAW

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Here we go again. I'll ignore the abuse.

Have I considered it? Have I considered it? Look here, MY position is that human life exists from conception but it does not warrant and cannot be guaranteed a right to life.

If unborn human life exists from cinception than the constitution says it has a right to life whether you think that right is warranted or not! You may also think if you wish that some people at eighteen are not entitled to vote but the constitution guarantees them this right. You might think that people of sixteen should vote or should have sex with people twice their age but again the law says that they cant do that without breaking the law.

If it is unborn it has a right to life under Irish law.

Crucifix

I read the husband was suggesting the embryos be anonymously donated. If this is indeed the case it shifts the issue a bit.

jimmycrackcorm

This is obviously one of those case that should have gone straight to the Supreme court.

Jackie laughlin

The sooner this reaches the supreme Court the better.

Isaw,
I don't think we are in disagreement.

The pro-Life amendment began the creation of a constitutional mess.

My point is that human life begins at conception but that says almost nothing: just that life begins at that point and it couldn't be other than human. It's neither practical nor morally justified to consider this life a person and to confer rights. At the other end of pregnancy no one thinks that it would be right to kill an almost full term foetus. Thus we arrive at a simple, clearcut problem. We must decide on an age up to which killing a foetus will be permitted. Reaching that decision will involve complex moral argument and the outcome will be provisional and need to be constantly addressed. It's far from simple, the arguments will be fraught and people of goodwill will be required to stay calm.


Corinthian,
I'm not greatly upset by abuse. However, since you regard what you said as mild, would you oblige - for the sake of interest - by giving an example of real, thoroughgoing abuse. Don't hold back; I'm fine, honestly.

I'm very familiar with Utilitarian philosophy especially the work of J.S. Mill but I don't understand your question.

oscarBravo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Corinthian,
I'm not greatly upset by abuse. However, since you regard what you said as mild, would you oblige - for the sake of interest - by giving an example of real, thoroughgoing abuse. Don't hold back; I'm fine, honestly.

TC, if you want to reply to this, feel free to do so by PM. It's off-topic for this thread.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'm very familiar with Utilitarian philosophy especially the work of J.S. Mill but I don't understand your question.

Because you’ve essentially applied utilitarian moral thinking to this question. Your objection to conferring rights to foetuses is based entirely upon what you would consider ‘practical’. Trying to save every foetus would thus be ‘impractical’, there would be too many and/or would result in too extensive a drain on resources and by extension the happiness of a Society. For you this is immoral because the consequences would be detrimental to the happiness of Society.

That is classic utilitarian philosophy.

This is, of course, is a perfectly valid position however I have two problems with it. Firstly you’re stating it as a moral starting point which, given not all would concur with your moral framework, it cannot be. So as much as you’ve claimed that the question is “far from simple, the arguments will be fraught and people of goodwill will be required to stay calm”, you’ve done so from a starting point that you’ve failed to debate and seem to simply assume is accepted. It’s not.

Secondly is that in starting without debate from such a utilitarian position you do not define why it is ‘impractical’ in the first place. This is not to say that your reasoning is not perfectly acceptable (from a utilitarian standpoint), but that it may then be equally applied elsewhere. Eugenics anyone?

oscarBravo wrote:

TC, if you want to reply to this, feel free to do so by PM. It's off-topic for this thread.

I’ve no intention of entertaining that request by PM or otherwise.

Jackie laughlin

Practicality is not the preserve of Utilitarianism. The first duty of philosophy is to be relevant. I am generally a critic of Utilitarianism.

Practicality must be discussed before reaching any decision. The truth of practicality itself must be part of the discussion; it is commonplace, for example, for neo-liberals to try to dismiss welfare arguments as "impractical".

In any event, I didn't say that guaranteeing a Right from conception was not practical. I said it was impossible. We are not even aware of the death of most fertilised eggs.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Practicality is not the preserve of Utilitarianism. The first duty of philosophy is to be relevant. I am generally a critic of Utilitarianism.

Then explain how what you argued was not utilitarianism and something else, especially as another thing that your position shared with it was consequentiality. And try to be relevant rather than simply saying that you should be.

Practicality must be discussed before reaching any decision. The truth of practicality itself must be part of the discussion; it is commonplace, for example, for neo-liberals to try to dismiss welfare arguments as "impractical".

Actually practicality is not always the first thing to be discussed, especially on moral issues. A lot of morality is not practical - for example, there is nothing practical about maintaining members of Society, such as the old, mentally or physically handicapped, who are a net drain on the resources of that society.

There we form our moral position first and then consider how to implement it in as practical a fashion as possible - not the other way around.

In any event, I didn't say that guaranteeing a Right from conception was not practical. I said it was impossible. We are not even aware of the death of most fertilised eggs.

Fallacious argument. Ascribing or ‘guaranteeing’ a right is a legal and moral not literal right. We can no more guarantee the right to life of adults who may (and mortality being what it is shall) die through accident, illness or otherwise. All we can do is ascribe or ‘guarantee’ this right, so that we can act to protect this right if another person threatens it.

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
You are resorting to abuse again but this time it's a little more sophisticated.

Of course there are are Utilitarian and consequentialist influences on and aspects to my arguments - all of them! I use these terms/classifications as a tool to help my thinking. They are not labels to be applied to a person who must then stick rigidly within a school of philosophy - unless of course the philosopher accepts the label and wants to argue exclusively from that perspective.

I didn't of course say that practicality had to be the first and only consideration. I said that it had to be considered and debated.

A right does more than protect us from others who would deny the right. It obligates the state to intervene, to strive officiously.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

You are resorting to abuse again but this time it's a little more sophisticated.

Again, stop exaggerating. Telling you to stick to the point is not abuse.

Of course there are are Utilitarian and consequentialist influences on and aspects to my arguments - all of them! I use these terms/classifications as a tool to help my thinking. They are not labels to be applied to a person who must then stick rigidly within a school of philosophy - unless of course the philosopher accepts the label and wants to argue exclusively from that perspective.

No one is accusing you of rigidly sticking to a school of thought, however you have given a classically utilitarian argument, as much as that label makes you uncomfortable.

I didn't of course say that practicality had to be the first and only consideration. I said that it had to be considered and debated.

Then why have you begun by discussing practicality before the initial moral principle? Did you think it a moot point?

A right does more than protect us from others who would deny the right. It obligates the state to intervene, to strive officiously.

How the State intervenes though is open to practical interpretation. Alcohol, Tobacco or cars all are harmful in differing ways, and were the State to truly strive officiously they would all be banned, but they’re not.

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
Courtesy and civility certainly are appreciated by me.

Did you apply the Utilitarian label in order to make me uncomfortable? My position is not based on a greatest happiness calculation. I don't know from where you get that.

When you say that I'm placing practicality before principle, to which moral principle do you refer?

Though you express it obscurely, I take it you now agree with me on the nature of a Right.

ISAW

Jackie laughlin wrote:

My position is not based on a greatest happiness calculation. I don't know from where you get that.

You claim to believe that a fertilised egg is human life -a potential person. Therefore how is it not "unborn"?

My point is that human life begins at conception but that says almost nothing: just that life begins at that point and it couldn't be other than human. It's neither practical nor morally justified to consider this life a person and to confer rights.

But rights under law can be conferred on non persons for example limitied companies. Under what basis can you claim it is not morally justified to consider a form of life as a person? IT is a sound moral position though you may well not agree with it. when you say it is not "practical" in the same sentence you dismiss the moral argument and consider the consequences of the outcomes of having rights under law.

You also accept that people have rights. whether these rights are written down in the law is another argument but in this case the specific right to life of the unborn is written down in law.

Also it utilitarianism suggested may possible be closer to that of the father James rather than the hedonistic version of the son J S Mill.

When you say that I'm placing practicality before principle, to which moral principle do you refer?

Well I would leave that for corinthian since he suggested it but I would point out that there is a moral principal that life has a right to life. to address this by suggesting at aside for moral arguents it is not "practical" to conside a fertilised egg as a person is to address it amorally on the practical outcome of not bestowing a right to life.

One may also consider that a fertilised egg may be bestowed other rights such as the right to be disposed of in a certain manner, a right to storage, a right not to be property of any living person etc. These may actually be practical ways out of the case in point. So one could claim it is practical to bestow rights on a fertilised egg even if the right to life is not one of them!