Abortion/Euthanasia - where do the arguments for/against come from?

faceman

With the talk of the referendum on abortion upcoming and Sean Brady doing his thing today, it got me thinking about the decision making process.

First off, I am not looking for a debate on abortion or euthanasia, im looking beyond that. From what areas do you think we should consider the arguments for and against it?

To give an example of what I mean:

The church will put forward their case based on religious morality grounds
Other parties will argue their case based on medical grounds
Other parties will argue their case on practical grounds (e.g. mother who cant afford to raise an unwanted/unplanned child)
Other parties will argue their case based on philosophical grounds.
Other parties will argue their case based on the right to chose, self determination.

So without getting into whether you are pro or anti, how much weight should a society give to each respective area for debate?

The jury is out for me as to what is important. Arguing on religious grounds carries little weight if not of the voting population isn't religious etc.

What do you think?

Sleepy

Religious beliefs should have no bearing on legislation of any kind imo.

If you disagree with something on religious grounds, use your religious freedom to behave in accordance with that belief (e.g. don't eat meat on Friday; don't date, sleep with or marry someone of the same sex; don't have an abortion; don't create visual depictions of Muhammed etc.) rather than trying to oppress another's right to be free from religious beliefs and do any of those things...

Laws should be based on reason, not superstition or gut feeling.

sheesh

Sleepy wrote: »

Religious beliefs should have no bearing on legislation of any kind imo.

If you disagree with something on religious grounds, use your religious freedom to behave in accordance with that belief (e.g. don't eat meat on Friday; don't date, sleep with or marry someone of the same sex; don't have an abortion; don't create visual depictions of Muhammed etc.) rather than trying to oppress another's right to be free from religious beliefs and do any of those things...

Laws should be based on reason, not superstition or gut feeling.

Normally I would agree but do you not see that if most religions regard abortion as murder that to remove the current legislation (as its written) would make anyone who votes for getting rid it it party to the 'death' of the fetus.
Also Laws are not based on reason. mores the pity.


Any way back to the op

How much should society give to each argument?

The religious and the old will vote against abortion 'just in case god exists'
the young will vote for it because it effects them
mothers might vote for it. as they might want the option for their daughters.
I'm not sure how the 18 to 40 male voter will vote or even if he does...

If the pro choice can get the female vote out I think they might have a chance.

if it comes to a referendum watch the anti abortion side try to get a vote during the academic year close to exams

Sleepy

Can't find a link to the story but heard a senior figure in the Catholic Church on the radio news over the weekend saying that anyone in favour of abortion under any circumstances should no longer consider themselves a Catholic. Think it could be very interesting if the Church was to continue with such a hard-line. The next census figures on religion would, imo, show a huge swing away from religion if the Catholic Church started pointing out to their a-la-carte members that they're not actually Catholics. Such a move would certainly result in religious argument receiving even less weight in political discussions than it currently does.

I agree with the suspicion that the old men in the collars (and the women too stupid to realise these men see them as second class citizens) will try to rob the youth of their democratic rights should a referendum be held.

I'm not sure I can see pro-choice side winning a referendum though. Leaving aside my own views, experience would make me believe that the anti-abortion side tend to be far more passionate about their opinion than those who'd be pro-choice or who'd like to see legislation for certain circumstances (pregnancy resulting from rape etc.). There certainly seems to be more vocal anti-abortion campaigners than pro-choice campaigners. In a country with such an apathetic electorate, I simply can't see those in the middle (even those who, if pressed on the matter, would vote pro) making the effort to get to the ballot box.

Of course, another large factor here is that Irish women are able to avail of crisis pregnancy services in the UK. I suspect that despite the increased emotional upheaval of travelling prior to or just after a procedure, many Irish women would continue to avail of this even if such services were available in Ireland/. This is a small island and one full of mean-spirited gossips. It's not hard to imagine why many women would prefer to deal with the travel than the possibility of Biddy from down the road's niece spotting her going into the clinic.

Medical or Scientific argument doesn't seem to provide much of a guideline on how to vote on the abortion issue since medical science has yet to answer the question regarding what point a zygote/embryo/child in utero becomes a human being rather than a collection of cells with the potential to be a human being.

Practical or economic argument is rarely welcome on the subject: witness the controversy surrounding the Freakonomics work on Roe v Wade's impact on social problems in New York.

Personally, I utterly dismiss any argument based on "my deity / book of scriptures says this is right/wrong" and vote based on my judgement of the reasoned arguments on a subject that are available to me that come from scientific or social scientific research or simple logic (typically whatever I find on these forums tbh).

Priori

faceman wrote:

To give an example of what I mean:

The church will put forward their case based on religious morality grounds
Other parties will argue their case based on medical grounds
Other parties will argue their case on practical grounds (e.g. mother who cant afford to raise an unwanted/unplanned child)
Other parties will argue their case based on philosophical grounds.
Other parties will argue their case based on the right to chose, self determination.

I think all of the above basically boil down to philosophical grounds. There is a philosophy underlying each point you mention (of course, that's not to say that each philosophical position is equally valid).

miec

The church will put forward their case based on religious morality grounds
Other parties will argue their case based on medical grounds
Other parties will argue their case on practical grounds (e.g. mother who cant afford to raise an unwanted/unplanned child)
Other parties will argue their case based on philosophical grounds.
Other parties will argue their case based on the right to chose, self determination.

I would also add the legalistic human rights issue within the European court of human rights context in particular with regards to those women who's life is threatened by the birth of a baby.

I believe the church will argue from a religious / legalistic point of view (ie: the rights of the child - as it was through their lobbying efforts that the rights of the unborn child were added to the constitution in 1983.

The problem with the church, and we can laugh at them for their idiotic views but they still hold a lot of sway / power.

I also believe that a larger proportion of young people (men and women) will vote against the introduction of abortion, even for those who could die. You only have to look at the multiple threads here and see how hot and bothered some people get.

Personally I believe to argue convincingly for the vote to choose one has to combine logic with emotion on this issue.

sheesh

personally I don't like to rubbish peoples beliefs (mostly )

Afaik most of the religions are against abortion All the Christian ones And I assume Islam (Could be wrong on that one)

there is an argument that they can use though that avoids alot of the spiritual
arguments and that is "When does Human life begin?" Is it the moment of conception? is it implantation? is it viability of the fetus?

The problem with abortion is that you are making a decision as to when a human life starts.

if you are looking for votes to allow abortion and you say that abortion should be available up to (say) 3 month (i.e.pitch it too late) you look like a baby murdering monster to some of the people you are trying to convince.

sweeney1971

If I was carrying a baby that I knew had something wrong with it I would have it terminated. In Law it would be illegal to keep an animal alive that had no quality of life so why keep a human alive that had no quality of life either?

As for getting to the stage of my life where I could not feed myself, wipe my own arse or ride my horses it will be a one way ticket to Digitas. Why would I put my family through hell trying to either take care of me or spent 'Their' inheritence on care when you know your going to die so its money down the drain.

Arguments from purely religious grounds shouldn't be given an ounce of weight. The religious can argue against abortion, as is their right, but they must convert their arguments to universal ones, rather than religion-specific ones, so that adherents of other religions or of no religion at all are capable of understanding their objections and concerns. I don't believe that we'll see arguments from the RCC based solely on religious grounds, though. Instead, they'll resort to shock-tactics (graphic images, sad stories, etc.) and misinformation as is often the case with certain pro-life advocacy groups. Given that, I believe people should give priority to arguments that are made from a scientific or medical standpoint, being sceptical and critical with all information they receive.

We can make an ethical decision about abortion but it should be informed by science and medicine, not by a religion or a need for a practical solution.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

Can't find a link to the story but heard a senior figure in the Catholic Church on the radio news over the weekend saying that anyone in favour of abortion under any circumstances should no longer consider themselves a Catholic. Think it could be very interesting if the Church was to continue with such a hard-line. The next census figures on religion would, imo, show a huge swing away from religion if the Catholic Church started pointing out to their a-la-carte members that they're not actually Catholics. Such a move would certainly result in religious argument receiving even less weight in political discussions than it currently does.

I believe that was Dr. John Murray of the Iona Institute.

sheesh

gvn wrote: »

Arguments from purely religious grounds shouldn't be given an ounce of weight. The religious can argue against abortion, as is their right, but they must convert their arguments to universal ones, rather than religion-specific ones, so that adherents of other religions or of no religion at all are capable of understanding their objections and concerns.

Haven't you just changed the game to suit your own view point. you don't agree with the religious arguments so you dismiss them?

Whats going to happen is if there if a referendum people will have a vote they will go a cast it in private you can be damn sure that spiritual/religious/moral factors are going to play a part in a vote that determines when human life begins.

sheesh

sheesh wrote: »

Haven't you just changed the game to suit your own view point. you don't agree with the religious arguments so you dismiss them?

I don't dismiss religious arguments because I disagree with the argument (well, I do, but that's irrelevant to the question being asked), I dismiss the arguments because they aren't universal, applicable to and understandable by all people, regardless of religion or lack thereof. We live in a secular state, so if you're going to make an argument it should be made within a framework that is capable of being understood by all, not just by some.

Whats going to happen is if there if a referendum people will have a vote they will go a cast it in private you can be damn sure that spiritual/religious/moral factors are going to play a part in a vote that determines when human life begins.

I agree with that. People will be informed by religion or their own views on morality when it comes to them casting their vote. That's not what the question in the OP concerns, though. The question is asking which arguments should we give credence to, or pay more attention to. It has nothing to do with the religious voting without being informed by their beliefs. My belief is that we should give more time and thought to arguments that are capable of being understood by all. Of course, you're perfectly entitled to disagree with this belief.

Procrastastudy

In a true democracy you can't negate something because you don't agree with it - unless, paradoxically, its against natural law - which tends to come from religious teaching amongst other places.

If the majority of the population went atheist tomorrow and decided that religious depictions should be banned from public then that's a democratic decision. The fact is the are large parts of the population that are religious and therefore their views should be represented. To do anything else turns us into a dictatorship. Being a hardened agnostic - not understanding the nature of the universe no one can say for certain if 'big beardy' exists or not.

On a side not religious teachings have resulted in some very just rulings in the courts in this country including the doctrine of unenumerated rights.

I think - all said and done - pure practicality. In this day and age there's no need to get pregnant - if you do suffer the inconvenience for 9 months and then give it up. If you want - open up the possibility of suing the father for negligence. If you break a leg its what you do.

Sleepy

Sue the father for negligence if the pill fails because the mother had the flu and was unaware that this can effect it's effectiveness? or because a condom splits? Strange notion tbh.

Religious arguments are worthless because to someone who doesn't share that religion it's the equivalent of saying "because my imaginary friend says so" or "because that's what I want to believe".

Procrastastudy

Sleepy wrote: »

Sue the father for negligence if the pill fails because the mother had the flu and was unaware that this can effect it's effectiveness? or because a condom splits? Strange notion tbh.

Religious arguments are worthless because to someone who doesn't share that religion it's the equivalent of saying "because my imaginary friend says so" or "because that's what I want to believe".

Sue the father as when he picked up a young maiden in Copper Face Jacks pissed out of her gord (as he was) he's culpable to the same extent she is. There are a number of reasons why 'couples' get pregnant to go though them in detail here would completely derail the thread. Suffice it to say it takes two to tango the woman shouldn't be the only one to suffer.

No argument is worthless in a democracy - thats the point. Its majority rule. Subject to some very fundamental ideals we take for granted - which as I've already pointed out come generally from religious teachings. Sorry if your point was more general than a rebuttal of mine it's not my intention to argue every post.

To answer the OPs question society should give one vote to each person who qualifies and go with the majority.

Sleepy

Apologies I thought you were indicating that the father held sole responsibility.

My understanding of the OP's question is not should we get rid of democracy but a question on the manner in which we should frame any debate or discussion on the issue being put to a democratic vote.

An argument that "my religious leader interprets the book we consider to be the teachings of our deity as saying that we should do X" is rather useless in a debate unless discussing the issue with another member of that faith. Even within most major religions there is debate regarding how their core texts should be interpreted so when trying to use the argument when discussing the issue who doesn't recognise the infallibility (or even existence) of the deity in question is an exercise in futility.

Procrastastudy

Sleepy wrote: »

Apologies I thought you were indicating that the father held sole responsibility.

My understanding of the OP's question is not should we get rid of democracy but a question on the manner in which we should frame any debate or discussion on the issue being put to a democratic vote.

An argument that "my religious leader interprets the book we consider to be the teachings of our deity as saying that we should do X" is rather useless in a debate unless discussing the issue with another member of that faith. Even within most major religions there is debate regarding how their core texts should be interpreted so when trying to use the argument when discussing the issue who doesn't recognise the infallibility (or even existence) of the deity in question is an exercise in futility.

I see your point - I would argue that while the Constitution maintains its references to God and much of the population is religious - religious arguments must be taken account of.

As before though - my main concern is practicality. There are more practical solutions to the problem - so taking the one with the greates moral issues seems to make no sense.

Procrastastudy

Procrastastudy wrote: »

In a true democracy you can't negate something because you don't agree with it - unless, paradoxically, its against natural law - which tends to come from religious teaching amongst other places.

Of course you can negate something if you don't agree with it. You can't interfere with the rights of others, but you can still argue.

If the majority of the population went atheist tomorrow and decided that religious depictions should be banned from public then that's a democratic decision. The fact is the are large parts of the population that are religious and therefore their views should be represented. To do anything else turns us into a dictatorship. Being a hardened agnostic - not understanding the nature of the universe no one can say for certain if 'big beardy' exists or not.

We don't live in an outright democracy, thankfully. An outright democracy is mob-rule. We live in a constitutional democracy, one that protects the rights of the people to freedom of religion. This means that if the majority of our population were to turn atheist tomorrow we couldn't just remove all religious symbols from public, as that would impinge on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people.

But this is all beside the point. Nobody here, least of all me, is saying that the religious, or religious institutions or organisations, shouldn't be allowed to make arguments against abortion. This is a complete diversion and is not discussing the topic of this thread.

What I and others have said is that arguments based solely on religious grounds shouldn't be given the same weight as arguments with a foundation in, say, medicine, science or ethics.

Procrastastudy

gvn wrote: »

Of course you can negate something if you don't agree with it. You can't interfere with the rights of others, but you can still argue.



We don't live in an outright democracy, thankfully. An outright democracy is mob-rule. We live in a constitutional democracy, one that protects the rights of the people to freedom of religion. This means that if the majority of our population were to turn atheist tomorrow we couldn't just remove all religious symbols from public, as that would impinge on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people.

But this is all beside the point. Nobody here, least of all me, is saying that the religious, or religious institutions or organisations, shouldn't be allowed to make arguments against abortion. This is a complete diversion and is not discussing the topic of this thread.

What I and others have said is that arguments based solely on religious grounds shouldn't be given the same weight as arguments with a foundation in, say, medicine, science or ethics.

I disagree - all arguments should be given the weight equal to the number of people exercising that argument. The issue with your argument is if you take the other side of it is that if someone is religious they will place less weight on the science arguments - a right they must have in a democracy, constitutional or otherwise. It's a slippery slope disreagarding someone's point of view because you don't agree with it. Of course if my belief is so far fetched that only I believe in it then it should be given the weight of 1 v rest of the population.

If 90% of the population was atheist they would hold a referendum and remove that constitutional protection - then pass that law. That is assuming they were atheists opposed to a minority publicly practicing their religion.

I hope my point is now clear sorry for taking several posts to do so.

EDIT: Of course if the Constitution was to prohibit religious argument then of course you would be correct.

So you, as an agnostic, will give arguments with a basis in Catholic doctrine as much weight as arguments with a foundation in medicine or biology, given that 85% or so of the population profess to be Catholic?

An argument's validity does not and should not have anything to do with the number of people making that argument. It should be independent of the person making the argument; objective, not subjective.

Procrastastudy

The question posed is how much weight should society give - perhaps I have mis-understood the original point - I took it to mean as a society how do we decide this bloody thing.

If it's an argument on what information should be put forward then surely the more the better? Is it not then up to the individual to decide based on his or her own beliefs (not only, or indeed at all, religious)?

I, as an agnostic, will give more weight to the scientific arguments and as a pragmatist give more weight to the practical solutions. That however doesn't make me correct does it?

Procrastastudy

Procrastastudy wrote: »

The question posed is how much weight should society give - perhaps I have mis-understood the original point - I took it to mean as a society how do we decide this bloody thing.

If it's an argument on what information should be put forward then surely the more the better? Is it not then up to the individual to decide based on his or her own beliefs (not only, or indeed at all, religious)?

I, as an agnostic, will give more weight to the scientific arguments and as a pragmatist give more weight to the practical solutions. That however doesn't make me correct does it?

I think we've both been coming at the question from different points of view. Given that a society is nothing more than the sum of its individual citizens, I interpreted the question as "how much weight should each individual give to certain arguments."

And yes, the more information the better. My argument was that people -- all people -- should be critical of all information, especially of information with a basis in religious ideology.

I guess we don't disagree all that much, our wires were just a little crossed.

Procrastastudy

gvn wrote: »

And yes, the more information the better. My argument was that people -- all people -- should be critical of all information, especially of information with a basis in religious ideology.

If only this were true of the average electorate! My only caveat being any ideology.