Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Keep abortion out of Ireland
Options
Comments
-
I think anyone who is anti-abortion needs to have a good think about the bodily privacy argument and come up with a sound ethical argument as to why bodily privacy is not supreme in this area, that extends beyond simply pregnancy. Having not made my mind up quite yet I would be interested in this arguments.
How would you feel about a Siamese twin choosing to commit suicide by swallowing cyanide? Does bodily privacy give them the right to thereby kill their twin too?0 -
How would you feel about a Siamese twin choosing to commit suicide by swallowing cyanide? Does bodily privacy give them the right to thereby kill their twin too?
That is an interesting question.
No would be my initial answer since the action is not localized to the twins body. You could extend it beyond the Siamese twins by saying say that I have the right to take a drug with a glass of tap water, but I don't have the right to put the drug in the tap water to enable me to take it because that would cause lots of others to take it as well.
So if we extend this abortion there is possibly an argument there that the mothers action extends to another body and thus should not be allowed.
There are problems with that argument though. It could be argued that the fetus is already invading the mothers bodily privacy and stopping that is not an innocent action effecting a third party. I don't have the right to shoot someone, but I do have the right to shoot them if they are about to cut me open.
It could also be argued that the removal of the fetus is not actually an action on the fetus, that the fetus dies as a consequence of no longer being in the body, not the action.
Going back to your twins example, there would be a difference I feel between the idea that the twin posions both bodies and the idea that the twin posions himself and then the other twin dies later simply because he cannot function without the first twin being alive.
Interesting question though, thanks.0 -
Agreed; an immediate serious risk to a mothers life will be treated; there is no doubt about that.Benny_Cake wrote: »There are two separate scenarios here. One is a case where a woman requires life saving treatment which may, as a side effect, result in the termination of the pregnancy. No doctor would hesitate to do this, even if it was certain that it would result in the death of the unborn child. This can't be considered abortion by any measure.Benny_Cake wrote: »The second is a case where an doctor believes that he or she needs to carry out an abortion to save the life of a woman. This is provided for in the X case but has never been legislated for, probably because our elected representatives are afraid to go anywhere near it. I think the point that Festus is making is that it is difficult to see what examples would fall into the second category (aside from the risk of suicide, which was found to be a substantial risk in the X case). Personally I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other.
There are many examples; some are rarer than others; some are exceptionally rare. Attempting to ascertain how many of these types of cases arise in Ireland is made more difficult by the fact that Irish hospitals appear not to compile statistics of cases where abortions are carried out in these circumstances (in the recent ECHR ABC v Ireland case, the court specifically requested Ireland to produce the relevant statistics - Ireland were only able to provide some limited statistics vis-a-vis abortions for ectopic pregnancies, while at the same time acknowledging that abortions were performed in Ireland for other reasons).
But what we can say is that all of the bodies listed below have, following exhaustively looking at the subject, stated 3 things:
1. that Irish law has not laid down any criteria or procedures by which the risk to the mother's life can be measured or determined (and specifically the term 'real and substantial risk')
2. that this had led to uncertainty as to the precise application of the term
3. that such definition & criteria is necessary.
The European Court of Human Rights
The Irish High & Supreme Courts
The Constitution Review Group Report 1996
The Interdepartmental Working Group Green Paper on Abortion, 1999
The Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution Fifth Progress Report 2000
The Law Reform Commission
The argument that some make (and Festus may or may not be making the same argument) is that there are absolutely no 'grey areas'; in other words, there are no factual circumstances that arise where the extent of the risk to the mother's life is not immediately obvious and where a measurement or determination as to the extent of that risk is required.
If such an argument has merit, one necessarily must be of the view that all of the bodies referred to above, in stating that legal criteria are necessary, are doing so for purely hypothetical and academic reasons, and not for reasons of actual practicality and reality. I dont think that is credible; do you?0 -
So irrespective of the question of whether the fetus is a person with rights, the bodily privacy argument is not easy to argue either way. I think anyone who is anti-abortion needs to have a good think about the bodily privacy argument and come up with a sound ethical argument as to why bodily privacy is not supreme in this area, that extends beyond simply pregnancy (ie I would see it as difficult to impossible to argue a woman has no right to abort her baby but does have the right to refuse to give blood to her baby.)
But, the right to bodily privacy, like any right is not supreme. To take the example you raised, that you dont have a general right to shoot someone, but you do if they are about to cut you open. It is widely accepted that you only have that right if the extent of the invasion of your bodily privacy is of a sufficiently high degree; on the other hand, if the invasion of your bodily privacy amounted to, for instance, shouting in your ear constantly, or putting flouride in your water (or countless other 'minor' infringements), you do not have a right to shoot them.
So we seem to have accepted that invasion of bodily integrity may warrant the killing of another, but a certain threshold must be met. Below that threshold, and the right of the other to their life trumps your right to bodily integrity. Above it, and your right to bodily integrity triumphs. Anti- abortion campaigners would suggest that the invasion of bodily privacy that is pregnancy can never reach that threshold.0 -
Actually you did that not me.
Really? You're the only one that is suggesting that both should be treated the same as far as I can tell. I am the one arguing that human life should be respected.
My point was that changing the point where life begins and ends is silly, because it is a biological definition. I believe it is wrong to deny human life, and condemning innocent children to death before they are born.0 -
Advertisement
-
But, the right to bodily privacy, like any right is not supreme. To take the example you raised, that you dont have a general right to shoot someone, but you do if they are about to cut you open. It is widely accepted that you only have that right if the extent of the invasion of your bodily privacy is of a sufficiently high degree; on the other hand, if the invasion of your bodily privacy amounted to, for instance, shouting in your ear constantly, or putting flouride in your water (or countless other 'minor' infringements), you do not have a right to shoot them.
So we seem to have accepted that invasion of bodily integrity may warrant the killing of another, but a certain threshold must be met. Below that threshold, and the right of the other to their life trumps your right to bodily integrity. Above it, and your right to bodily integrity triumphs.
The threshold seems to centre around force though. The government can put stuff in the water, but they aren't physically forcing you to drink it. You can still choose or not to drink it. The fetus is, in essence, forcing itself to invade the bodily privacy of the woman (though of course many would argue that the woman invited this by getting pregnant in the first place).
It also doesn't answer the question of whether the woman has the right to do what ever she likes with her body even if that consequences of that action is that the fetus dies.0 -
The threshold seems to centre around force though. The government can put stuff in the water, but they aren't physically forcing you to drink it. You can still choose or not to drink it. The fetus is, in essence, forcing itself to invade the bodily privacy of the woman (though of course many would argue that the woman invited this by getting pregnant in the first place). .
Im not quite sure what you mean about the threshold centring around force? Do you mean 'intent'? ie. the government intends to flouridate the water; the individual intends to shout in your ear; the individual intends to cut you open; the foetus doesnt intend to invade the mother's baby?It also doesn't answer the question of whether the woman has the right to do what ever she likes with her body even if that consequences of that action is that the fetus dies.
Yes, that is a fair point. Most states have been reluctant to impose sanctions on mothers who kill/harm their unborn babies through recklessness; so in that sense one could say that a woman has the right to do what ever she likes with her body even if that consequences of that action is that the fetus dies.
But that right is not absolute either; the prohibition on abortion would still criminalise a woman who does something to her body with the intent of causing a miscarriage. So clearly there are constraints on what a pregnant woman can do with her body; strictly speaking, she cant do whatever she likes with her body.0 -
Im not quite sure what you mean about the threshold centring around force? Do you mean 'intent'? ie. the government intends to flouridate the water; the individual intends to shout in your ear; the individual intends to cut you open;
Only the last one is an invasion of bodily privacy. The first is consensual (you drink the water), the second one does not invade your body, though it does you personal space.the foetus doesnt intend to invade the mother's baby?
Intend doesn't seem to be an issue. The question is does the foetus have the right to do this. If it does then the next question is under what grounds and justification, and does this extend to anyone else.
This is one of the some what ironic issues with the anti-abortion arguments, if you are going to treat the fetus as a person with rights then that means you have to treat it the same as you would treat any other person, and often that gets the anti-abortion argument in a bit of trouble since I have no right to be inside the woman's body so why would the fetus have that right?Yes, that is a fair point. Most states have been reluctant to impose sanctions on mothers who kill/harm their unborn babies through recklessness; so in that sense one could say that a woman has the right to do what ever she likes with her body even if that consequences of that action is that the fetus dies.
But that right is not absolute either; the prohibition on abortion would still criminalise a woman who does something to her body with the intent of causing a miscarriage. So clearly there are constraints on what a pregnant woman can do with her body; strictly speaking, she cant do whatever she likes with her body.
Well the existence of such laws doesn't mean that it is correct. Some places outlaw abortion, others don't.
What would be the moral argument that the mother cannot do something to her own body if it causes a miscarriage?0 -
Intend doesn't seem to be an issue. The question is does the foetus have the right to do this. If it does then the next question is under what grounds and justification, and does this extend to anyone else.
Perhaps you would care to explain, ideally frm a scientific perspective, how the foetus invades the mothers body?0 -
Perhaps you would care to explain, ideally frm a scientific perspective, how the foetus invades the mothers body?
Well when a man loves a woman very much they do a special hug ...
Joking aside I assume you don't need the birds and bees explained to you, and I suspect you are questioning the negative connotations of the term "invade".
But if the foetus is in the woman's body and the woman does not consent to this and wishes that the foetus was removed, can you think of a better term?0 -
Advertisement
-
Well when a man loves a woman very much they do a special hug ...
Joking aside I assume you don't need the birds and bees explained to you, and I suspect you are questioning the negative connotations of the term "invade".
But if the foetus is in the woman's body and the woman does not consent to this and wishes that the foetus was removed, can you think of a better term?
I am questioning the use of the term invade because it is wholly and utterly wrong.
and what's this " if the foetus is in the womans body" rubbish. The foetus can only every be inside a womans body, so the use of "if" is wholly and utterly wrong.
A woman can get pregnant by consenting to sex or a woman can get pregnant by having sex without consent. Yes I am aware of other methods but that frequently involves those who want to be pregnant. of course there is the case of those who go for IFV, then find they have too many babies, or babies with genetic problems or the wrong sex, or wrong colour, or maybe not even theirs but again that's beside the point.
The point is we are talking about an innocent third part human being who didn't ask to be put there and only asks to remain there until he or she can survive outside its mothers body.
After than she can bring her or him up or allow a more willing person or couple bring him or her up.
He or she did not ask to be put there and never invaded thier mother as that is an impossibility.
Perhaps as part of sex education everyone should before having sex ask the question " if we get pregnant are we keeping it"0 -
I am questioning the use of the term invade because it is wholly and utterly wrong.
and what's this " if the foetus is in the womans body" rubbish. The foetus can only every be inside a womans body, so the use of "if" is wholly and utterly wrong.
Sorry I'm not following the issue here. The fetus can be removed from the woman's body. That is what an abortion is. If it is removed it is no longer in the woman's body.The point is we are talking about an innocent third part human being who didn't ask to be put there and only asks to remain there until he or she can survive outside its mothers body.
That is irrelevant though, isn't it.
How innocent a third party is has no bearing on the principle of bodily privacy, or at least that would be my understanding. I'm open to correction on that if you have an argument as to how it would, but I would ask that you apply the argument to all persons, not just the fetus. Can an innocent party for example force you to give blood, or can you be forced to give blood if it is for an innocent party, but not a criminal?He or she did not ask to be put there and never invaded thier mother as that is an impossibility.
That doesn't make much sense.
The invading party does not have to be consciously aware of anything (you can be invaded by all manner of unaware things such as foreign particles like a splinter stuck in your thumb). The "invading" relates to the consent of the person to have the foreign party in their body. No one would say you have to keep that splinter in your thumb because the splinter doesn't know what it is doing, would they.
So how aware the fetus is or not is (again) rather irrelevant to the principle of bodily privacy.Perhaps as part of sex education everyone should before having sex ask the question " if we get pregnant are we keeping it"
Again that is not relevant to the issue of bodily privacy.
Look Festus I appreciate that people get riled up over the issue of abortion, but I really don't have much interest in going over the numerous emotional but rather illogical arguments against abortion particularly if they do not relate to the principle bodily privacy.
If you have an actual argument related to the principle of bodily privacy I'm more than happy to discuss that.0 -
In your opinion. Ifyou don't like my tone that's fine. Put me on your ignore list. It's your choice to read me.
Unfortunatley abortion is disgusting and in fact is murder. That is the reality of it. All that abortion produces is dead babies, broken mothers and wealthy "doctors".
Well that is YOUR opinion, and as you know opinions are like @*******, everybody has one. Your language is emotive to the extreme. It's people like you who have pushed me over to the 'pro-choice' lobby with all this talk of the poor 'dead babies'.0 -
If you have an actual argument related to the principle of bodily privacy I'm more than happy to discuss that.
Bodily privacy applies to the body of an idividual. For you to prove your point you must prove that the baby's body is an integral part of the mothers body, sharing her bodily systems.
As the baby is separated from the mothers bodily systems by the placenta and the uterus it is a separate individual entitled to it's own bodily privacy.
It never invaded, it came into existence there. All it want is what everyone else wants - to be allowed to live0 -
Your language is emotive to the extreme. It's people like you who have pushed me over to the 'pro-choice' lobby with all this talk of the poor 'dead babies'.
I never used the term poor, the fact that babies have no money of their own is neither here nor there.
The fact is you don't want to hear the truth and the truth is that abortion is murder, and those who are murdered are babies.0 -
A message on http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com asks the Irish people to keep abortion out of Ireland
Who actually writes this ? And more to the point who actually believes it really is Mary ?
Not a fan of abortion myself by the way..0 -
Mary speaks English now?0
-
Agreed; an immediate serious risk to a mothers life will be treated; there is no doubt about that.
There are many examples; some are rarer than others; some are exceptionally rare. Attempting to ascertain how many of these types of cases arise in Ireland is made more difficult by the fact that Irish hospitals appear not to compile statistics of cases where abortions are carried out in these circumstances (in the recent ECHR ABC v Ireland case, the court specifically requested Ireland to produce the relevant statistics - Ireland were only able to provide some limited statistics vis-a-vis abortions for ectopic pregnancies, while at the same time acknowledging that abortions were performed in Ireland for other reasons).
But what we can say is that all of the bodies listed below have, following exhaustively looking at the subject, stated 3 things:
1. that Irish law has not laid down any criteria or procedures by which the risk to the mother's life can be measured or determined (and specifically the term 'real and substantial risk')
2. that this had led to uncertainty as to the precise application of the term
3. that such definition & criteria is necessary.
The European Court of Human Rights
The Irish High & Supreme Courts
The Constitution Review Group Report 1996
The Interdepartmental Working Group Green Paper on Abortion, 1999
The Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution Fifth Progress Report 2000
The Law Reform Commission
The argument that some make (and Festus may or may not be making the same argument) is that there are absolutely no 'grey areas'; in other words, there are no factual circumstances that arise where the extent of the risk to the mother's life is not immediately obvious and where a measurement or determination as to the extent of that risk is required.
If such an argument has merit, one necessarily must be of the view that all of the bodies referred to above, in stating that legal criteria are necessary, are doing so for purely hypothetical and academic reasons, and not for reasons of actual practicality and reality. I dont think that is credible; do you?
That's a really good post dvpower - I won't deny it.
However, the very same courts, review groups, committees etc. while they are absolutely well intentioned, many of them give recommendations too, to other countries that fall within their remit? While it's a good thing insofar as human rights are concerned, I would be totally for listening and taking said advise, because it's humanitarian in nature, but not so much willing to follow in others paths that have done so beforehand, where abortion on demand has become acceptable.
Those countries imo who may have recognised that 'abortion' exists one way or the other, and have legislated for it to try to protect 'rights' and also women too insofar as she is the one who can only give life to a child through the course of nine months, have recognised that there are very hard cases - but have also, without doubt failed in a terrible way to reflect the values that Irish people have always placed on the rights of the very tender life of the unborn and the value of their inherent humanity too. This is not baby against mum or one against the other - we're tied up together.
Ireland is unique in this regard, it's among the last outposts that could possibly change anything, and we have the opportunity to look and see the results of various legislations in our European counterparts and not only to follow them, but also to stand out from the crowd and do better - there is, imo room to do better too with regards to protecting both the mum AND the tiny new very human lifeform that all of us once were.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Bodily privacy applies to the body of an idividual. For you to prove your point you must prove that the baby's body is an integral part of the mothers body, sharing her bodily systems.
No it is actually the exact opposite. As you say a baby is a sperate entity. Thus the argument goes the woman has ever right to remove this entity from her body if she so wishes, irrespective of the consequences that such removal will have on the foetus. It is her body, through the extension of the principle of privacy she can do what she likes with it and no one can dictate to her what she can or cannot do with it.
If you disagree do you have an argument why this doesn't hold, why another individual can supersede a person's right to control their own body?It never invaded, it came into existence there. All it want is what everyone else wants - to be allowed to live
Since when has what the foetus wants got anything to do with it? The foetus by anti-abortion principle is a separate individual.
Expand this out beyond pregnancy. Can you think of a case where any separate individual has a claim over another persons body? If so why?
For example I have no claim over your body. At all. Zero. Irrespective of any desire or wish I have. I cannot demand you give me blood (even if I will die if you don't), I cannot demand you under go an operation, I cannot demand you give me bone marrow etc. You have complete authority over your own body. You can give me blood, you can give me bone marrow, you can have your wisdom teeth removed, but you must consent to all actions on your body.
Such ideas that I could force you to do any of this go against the principles of bodily privacy, which would say that no individual has a claim or authority over a persons body other than the person themselves.
So if the foetus is simply another individual then why would it have any more claim over the woman's body than any other individual? Surely the only person with authority over the woman's body is the woman herself, and if the woman wishes to remove the foetus from her body she can.0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.
Not really. Say you are in an accident. You wake up to find yourself hooked up to a transfusion kit and you are transfusing blood into another person.
Now if you pull out the needle the other person will probably die. Do you have the right to pull out the needle? Or can you be physically or legally stopped from doing so.
Most people, I imagine, would say that you have the right to pull out the needle based on the idea that you are the supreme authority on what does or doesn't happen to your body, that the principle of bodily privacy over rules other considerations such as whether the other person will die.
This isn't a question of should you, or whether doing so would be a nasty bad thing to do. But whether you have the fundamental right to do so if you wish.
How innocent the other person is in all this, or whether they did or didn't have intend to take your blood is largely irrelevant. The other person might have never even woken up and have no idea this was happening.
Take another example, a relative yours has fallen ill and they require cells from you in order to survive. For some reason you refuse to give him the cells (maybe it is against your religion). While you sleep a doctor drugs you and extracts the cells himself. That doctor would probably be prosecuted for a crime, even if he saved your relative, even if your relative had no idea this was happening and even if there was no permanent harm to you.
In all cases I can think of the concept of bodily privacy supersedes any external factors, such as the right to life of an individual who will die if your right to bodily privacy is not broken.This post has been deleted.
The intention is to remove the foetus from the body. If the foetus dies as a result of that it is not an invasion of the foetus' bodily privacy, any more than removing the blood transfer tube is an invasion of the other guy in the car accident's bodily privacy.
If the foetus was removed and was still managing to survive (which can happen in very late term abortions) and then the doctor killed the baby anyway after the removal then that to my mind would be murder.
The principle of bodily privacy says the woman has the right to perform any action on her own body, and that includes removing foreign bodies from her own body (and if we consider the foetus to be a separate individual then it must be considered a foreign body). Once that has been achieved she has no more right over that individual than she does over anyone else.This post has been deleted.
It does not require the consent of both parties. If I am hooked up to a needle feeding blood to another person I do not need their consent to remove the needle from my body. What they do with the needle in their body is up to them.This post has been deleted.
How certain or uncertain the consequences of such an action are are irrelevant. If I am certain the other person will die if I remove the needle form my body does not alter my rights any more than I am not uncertain the person will die.This post has been deleted.
Ok, but if you really believe that you have to apply that universally, not just to abortion because you are anti-abortion.
So what you are saying is that the right to life of another individual supersedes a person's right to bodily privacy. This means that in any case where you must weigh up bodily privacy verses a person's right to life the latter take precedence.
So if I need your kidney, or your bone marrow, I can have it, because my right to continue to live and exist overrides your right to bodily privacy. My right to life trumps your right to decide what happens to your own body.
Is this what you are saying?This post has been deleted.
She cannot violate the foetus' right to bodily privacy. Removing the foetus from her body, even if the foetus dies, is not through violating its right to bodily privacy.0 -
There are many women out there who regret they ever had an abortion, so much so that a ministy was set up to help these women heal, such as Rachel's Vineyard.Abortion is a Lie. With abortion, one Heart is stopped and another Heart is broken. Some of these women share their heart-breaking stories!
http://www.rachelsvineyard.ie/stories.php
Another heart-rending story of a woman who was brutally raped, and aborted the child she conceived as a result of that rape.After I was raped I aborted my child, but that only increased the pain.......Abortion Only Adds Pain and Guilt.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/after-i-was-brutally-raped-i-aborted-my-child-and-i-desperately-wish-i-hadn0 -
So if the foetus is simply another individual then why would it have any more claim over the woman's body than any other individual? Surely the only person with authority over the woman's body is the woman herself, and if the woman wishes to remove the foetus from her body she can.
I agree with the above principle but I'm still wondering if kicking the fetus out to certain death is a proportional response.
Clumsy analogies follow:
If I were to invade your body, and in doing so threatened your life, you would of course have the right to defend yourself to the point of killing me.
If I were to invade your body, stealing some of your blood and cutting you a bit, would killing me be a proportional response considering you will most likely recover in a few months? You also have the complication that I am unaware of my adverse affect on you as I am harming you, but if I desist I will die, so it is a crime without intent so to speak.
Edit: Never mind, you seem to have answered this question above before I posted. Cheers.0 -
gimmebroadband wrote: »There are many women out there who regret they ever had an abortion, so much so that a ministy was set up to help these women heal, such as Rachel's Vineyard.
While I think it is great that people who regret having an abortion have places to turn for help, the pushing of the idea that because some regret abortions all abortions must cause emotional harm on women is rather naive. Lots of women have abortions and don't regret it, I'm guessing this group wouldn't like them saying that abortions have no mental downside. Surely the same principle should apply in the opposite direction.
I Had an Abortion and I Don’t Regret It0 -
Isn't it strange that the church has so much sympathy for these babies, but that sympathy seemed to be lacking when, babies born here to unmarried mothers, were taken off to orphanages and the mothers' parents were told by a priest to 'kick her out'. (The parents actually would turf their daughter out onto the street, unimaginable now). The baby and mother were separated. How is this good for a newborn? The mother was sent off to a workhouse. How christian!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylumSince 2001, the Irish government has acknowledged that women in the Magdalene laundries were abuse victims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/world/europe/21ireland.htmlSome of the schools operated essentially as workhouses. In one school, Goldenbridge, girls as young as 7 spent hours a day making rosaries by stringing beads onto lengths of wire. They were given quotas: 600 beads on weekdays and 900 on Sundays.
Hypocrisy in the church!0 -
gimmebroadband wrote: »There are many women out there who regret they never had an abortion,
Fixed it for you.
0 -
joseph brand wrote: »Isn't it strange that the church has so much sympathy for these babies, but that sympathy seemed to be lacking when, babies born here to unmarried mothers, were taken off to orphanages and the mothers' parents were told by a priest to 'kick her out'.
What has this argument got to do with the fundamental objective reality of human life... What this priest or that bishop said/did is irrelevant. Human life is more or less valuable because of what other people think. Abortion is not about what one church thinks. Abortion is wrong, killing an innocent life is wrong.0 -
-
No it is actually the exact opposite. As you say a baby is a sperate entity. Thus the argument goes the woman has ever right to remove this entity from her body if she so wishes, irrespective of the consequences that such removal will have on the foetus. It is her body, through the extension of the principle of privacy she can do what she likes with it and no one can dictate to her what she can or cannot do with it.
If you disagree do you have an argument why this doesn't hold, why another individual can supersede a person's right to control their own body?
As a parent you provide a home and food for your children - those that are born - by extension of the privacy rule you so adore do you have the right to leave your children outside of your home exposed ot the elements with no access to food or water?Since when has what the foetus wants got anything to do with it? The foetus by anti-abortion principle is a separate individual.
No, by scientific definition the unborn child from conception is a separate and unique entity, and in this jurisdiction is afforded a right to life.Expand this out beyond pregnancy. Can you think of a case where any separate individual has a claim over another persons body? If so why?
The uterus is a home to the unborn child - see above.For example I have no claim over your body. At all. Zero. Irrespective of any desire or wish I have. I cannot demand you give me blood (even if I will die if you don't), I cannot demand you under go an operation, I cannot demand you give me bone marrow etc. You have complete authority over your own body. You can give me blood, you can give me bone marrow, you can have your wisdom teeth removed, but you must consent to all actions on your body.
Then why not grant the same rule of consent to the unborn child?Such ideas that I could force you to do any of this go against the principles of bodily privacy, which would say that no individual has a claim or authority over a persons body other than the person themselves.
Exactly so you have to get consent form the unborn child.So if the foetus is simply another individual then why would it have any more claim over the woman's body than any other individual? Surely the only person with authority over the woman's body is the woman herself, and if the woman wishes to remove the foetus from her body she can.
"If" does not work. It is.
However there is a grain of truth to what you say. A womnan can remove bits from her body, including her uterus even if it contains a child but if it did and her sole purpose for removing the uterus, or its contents, is to destroy the child she would be commiting murder.0 -
Advertisement
-
What has this argument got to do with the fundamental objective reality of human life... What this priest or that bishop said/did is irrelevant. Human life is more or less valuable because of what other people think. Abortion is not about what one church thinks. Abortion is wrong, killing an innocent life is wrong.
I've mentioned the church since this is the christianity forum. Therefore relevant.
When I think of abortion I usually think about rape victims. These women should be allowed choose.
There are women who don't want a child to get in the way of their career. They are sick and are probably unfit mothers anyway.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement