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
Risk to life, including suicide?
Options
Comments
-
"unborn child" or "foetus".iptba wrote:Piliger wrote:The woman does not simply 'abdicate her rights and responsibilities' . She removes the foetus from her body as a result of her rights over her own body. This is not a matter of abdication, but one of removing the very object of those rights and responsibilities .
One can argue this is worse. The proposition doesn't involve the father killing the child.
There is no child, and your use of the word 'worse' is a subjective one from left field.
I don't think it is that radical to say that killing somebody or something (e.g. an animal if one wants to move away from the word "child") is "worse" than renouncing responsibilities to them.0 -
You don't find it ironic arguing that the State should take over ownership of a woman's body during pregnancy while at the same time calling the notion of personal liberty, that you own your own body no matter what, "the stuff of the Third Reich"?
I can see the standard of this debate is the usual high standard of an abortion debate :rolleyes:
I own a car. I do not have absolute control over what I can do with that car, for example, I cannot get into the car and make a decision to run someone down and kill them.
I own a hand and a foot, I do have an automatic right, by virtue of my ownership of those two limbs, to do whatever I want with them, for example I cannot just go out my front door and kick the first person I see, up the arse.
There is nothing unusual about state controls on what you can do with your own body, surprise surprise.0 -
By what standard? What is the ethical justification for the State taking over ownership of the woman's body on behalf of the foetus?
You either refuse to, or fail to, grasp the issues in context of the real world and the conflicting Rights that apply.
You persistently try to argue an absolutist argument that exists only in your head, and while it may amuse you to do so, it doesn't stand up and the discussion will end because of your unwillingness to accept that.
Rights do not exist in a vaccuum. My Right to free speech is balanced against hate speech, and the crying fire case - both of which restrict other people's Rights. My Rights are limited by how they affect other people's Rights. All Rights are relative.
A woman may have a Right over her own body, and indeed she does, but that right is not an absolutist one. There are other conflicting Rights and you denying that they exist doesn't make them go away.
Let's consider a case where, after some series of accidents you end up on a balancing beam 5 stories up on the edge of a building. It is cold and snowing. On the other end of the beam is a woman. You are 2 feet from safety. She is 60 feet from safety. She will fall to concrete if you leave your end. You have a Right to movement. You have a Right over your own body. You are a free person. And you both know that help will take 5 hours to arrive. You have a right to avoid the cold and suffering.
Do you have a Right to jump to freedom, knowing that the woman may well die ? Do you have an absolute Right to do what you want ? After all she may not die ... or she may well die. You have a right to shelter and to not have to suffer freezing temperatures and snow. But do you have the right to jump ?
A Woman does have a Right to control her own body. However it is perfectly reasonable and rational for Society to say that there comes a time when a foetus becomes a person and that that person also has Rights, and if the Mother wants to remove that person from within her, Society decides that the risks outweigh the benefit to her and her Rights. That does not remove her Rights. It tempers them against conflicting Rights.0 -
-
I am arguing there are competing rights and responsibilities. Your position is that the woman has no responsibilities.
I'm arguing that the person (man or woman) owns their own body above anyone else and must consent to what their body is used for, no matter what that use is (be it pregnancy, giving body, having sex, being an organ donor, being part of a medical trial).
Are you arguing the opposite? Because you seem to be spending a lot of bluster telling me I'm wrong but very reluctant to put forward a solid argument why, and argument for the justification of the state taking ownership of the woman's body.I'm arguing it is similar: fathers are given responsibilities because they were involved in the creation of their child, which compete against the rights they have to be free to do what they want with their own money and body.
What is a father forced to do to his own body without his consent as a result of having a child?0 -
Advertisement
-
You either refuse to, or fail to, grasp the issues in context of the real world and the conflicting Rights that apply.
This may sound bizarre, but this argument that is presented here in terms of a woman's "right" to exercise "absolute control" over her body, actually appears to be based upon, (or else coincidentally just happens to match), the basic doctrine of LeVayan Satanism:
http://altreligion.about.com/od/alternativereligionsaz/a/satanism.htm0 -
What is a father forced to do to his own body without his consent as a result of having a child?
Has it occurred to you at all that a man and a woman are not biologically equal, a man not having a womb that can carry a child and a woman having one? The process of conception and childbirth are in no way equal when it comes to a man and a woman, they are nearly the opposite of equal.
How you try to completely by-pass that fact and come out the other end of the discussion alleging that men and women are equal, insofar as equality pertains to the process of conception and pregnancy, is a bit mind boggling to be honest.0 -
You either refuse to, or fail to, grasp the issues in context of the real world and the conflicting Rights that apply.
Yeah, so people keep telling me, yet oddly you all seem to be really struggling to actually come up with a conherient ethical justification.Rights do not exist in a vaccuum. My Right to free speech is balanced against hate speech, and the crying fire case - both of which restrict other people's Rights. My Rights are limited by how they affect other people's Rights. All Rights are relative.
A woman may have a Right over her own body, and indeed she does, but that right is not an absolutist one.
Why is it not an "absolute" one? Why does a person not have absolute right over their own body.
What you are actually arguing is that someone else has absolute ownership over your body, that you have ownership up to a point and beyond that point the absolute owner (ie the state) takes over.
I hope you can appreciate the problem with that.Let's consider a case where, after some series of accidents you end up on a balancing beam 5 stories up on the edge of a building. It is cold and snowing. On the other end of the beam is a woman. You are 2 feet from safety. She is 60 feet from safety. She will fall to concrete if you leave your end. You have a Right to movement. You have a Right over your own body. You are a free person. And you both know that help will take 5 hours to arrive. You have a right to avoid the cold and suffering.
Do you have a Right to jump to freedom, knowing that the woman may well die ? Do you have an absolute Right to do what you want ? After all she may not die ... or she may well die. You have a right to shelter and to not have to suffer freezing temperatures and snow. But do you have the right to jump ?
A Woman does have a Right to control her own body. However it is perfectly reasonable and rational for Society to say that there comes a time when a foetus becomes a person and that that person also has Rights, and if the Mother wants to remove that person from within her, Society decides that the risks outweigh the benefit to her and her Rights.
Ok, so then she doesn't have right to control her own body, the State does. The State owns her body and acts in the interests of the child.
You can't argue both things at the same time. You either do have bodily autonomy or you don't.
Saying you do up to a point means you don't. The history of civil rights abuses is littered with people saying "Oh yes of course you have that absolute right, except now in this instance..."0 -
HellFireClub wrote: »This may sound bizarre, but this argument that is presented here in terms of a woman's "right" to exercise "absolute control" over her body, actually appears to be based upon, (or else coincidentally just happens to match), the basic doctrine of LeVayan Satanism:
http://altreligion.about.com/od/alternativereligionsaz/a/satanism.htm
It's not based on that doctrine. It may have things in common with it, but it is not based on it. Hardly surprising when it is such a basic and obvious human issue.0 -
HellFireClub wrote: »Has it occurred to you at all that a man and a woman are not biologically equal, a man not having a womb that can carry a child and a woman having one? The process of conception and childbirth are in no way equal when it comes to a man and a woman, they are nearly the opposite of equal.
How you try to completely by-pass that fact and come out the other end of the discussion alleging that men and women are equal, insofar as equality pertains to the process of conception and pregnancy, is a bit mind boggling to be honest.
What the hell are you talking about?
It was claimed that a father has a responsibility to the child that over rides his right to bodily privacy. I asked iptba to detail when this happens.
I've no idea what your rant refers to?0 -
Advertisement
-
HellFireClub wrote: »This may sound bizarre, but this argument that is presented here in terms of a woman's "right" to exercise "absolute control" over her body, actually appears to be based upon, (or else coincidentally just happens to match), the basic doctrine of LeVayan Satanism:
http://altreligion.about.com/od/alternativereligionsaz/a/satanism.htm
The fundamental right of bodily autonomy/privacy is a human right dating back to the earliest times of medical ethics (ie the Greeks), where it was considered by many of the earliest doctors to be immoral to perform medical experimentation/procedures on those who did not consent to it under the basis that a person's body was their's and theirs alone and no one else had the right to interfere with it without consent.
Its good to see that in 4,000 years we've made progress :rolleyes:0 -
The fundamental right of bodily autonomy/privacy is a human right dating back to the earliest times of medical ethics (ie the Greeks), where it was considered by many of the earliest doctors to be immoral to perform medical experimentation/procedures on those who did not consent to it under the basis that a person's body was their's and theirs alone and no one else had the right to interfere with it without consent.
Its good to see that in 4,000 years we've made progress :rolleyes:
There is no such right. I've already explained to you that rights you have over your own body ARE NOT ABSOLUTE but are generally qualified by law. I have a right to go out into the car park and wave my fists all around the place. I do not have a right to do so in a manner that causes someone an injury, if I do so, I am guilty of assault.
I don't even have a right to get drunk in a public place, it is a crime to be a nuisance or a danger to others, OR A DANGER TO MYSELF and I can be arrested for my own safety if I do so.
This "absolute" right to do what you want with your own body, whether you be a man or a woman, only exists in your own head, nowhere else.0 -
How can somebody who has little or no money provide financially for the child (a responsibility that he is wishing to avoid): he has to use his body to earn that money. You say above:Zombrex wrote:iptba wrote:I'm arguing it is similar: fathers are given responsibilities because they were involved in the creation of their child, which compete against the rights they have to be free to do what they want with their own money and body.
What is a father forced to do to his own body without his consent as a result of having a child?
I'm saying it is like arguing that he doesn't consent for his body to be used to provide financially for the unborn foetus/child.I'm arguing that the person (man or woman) owns their own body above anyone else and must consent to what their body is used for, no matter what that use is (be it pregnancy, giving body, having sex, being an organ donor, being part of a medical trial).0 -
For what it's worth, from today's Oireachtas Health Committee Hearings:
Full article at: http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=22130Consultant psychiatrist at St Vincent's Hospital, Dublin, Prof Kevin Malone, who ha carried out extensive research on suicide, said including suicide ideation in the legislation could place a greater number of young male lives at suicide risk than currently.
He asked how would mental health literacy be taught in schools explaining that suicidality was legitimised in the legislation for women in certain circumstances when the pregnant woman suicide rate was two per 1,000,000, but not for young men, where the suicide rate was 350 per 1,000,000.
Prof Malone said abortion was not a treatment for mental illness in any psychiatry textbook.
"Four Irish psychiatrists...in the Dublin Maternity Hospitals for over 20 years have not observed one clinical case where abortion was the recommended psychiatric treatment - how can it suddenly become a recommended psychiatric treatment overnight in Ireland upon this legislation?"0 -
That a really interesting response.
And while it will inevitably be shot down by many, it makes sense0 -
The whole thing is an example of an Irish solution to an Irish problem.
Government wants to introduce de facto abortion on roughly the same level of availability as the rest of Europe. However, it cannot admit this because all the mainstream parties are de jure 'pro-life'.
So it introduces threat of suicide, something that lends itself to the subjective diagnosis, as a valid reason; thus maintaining both the illusion that abortion is still not freely available in Ireland, while potentially creating a system where it will be available on demand.
All depending on how a 'suicide risk' is assessed - which is where the debate is presently at, from what I can see.0 -
I agree that current discourse is a way for the govt to legislate for abortion whilst simultaneously maintaining the practice of exporting the procedure.
I am having real difficulty in understanding Prof Malone's position and I think he's wrongly conflating these issues. How can the inclusion of a suicide clause in abortion legislation 'legitimise' suicide any more than repealing the offence of suicide? Unless he also argues that the incidence of suicide in young men has increased since 1993 for that reason therefore suicide should be re-criminalised.0 -
I believe what is being argued is that it turns (threat of) suicide into a legitimate justification for certain actions - and only for women, which in itself either makes no sense or in principle allows for similar actions for men who threaten suicide.How can the inclusion of a suicide clause in abortion legislation 'legitimise' suicide any more than repealing the offence of suicide?
For example, a guy knocks up a girl. The pressure of fatherhood; having to at least financially support the child for decades (not simply nine months) can be extreme in some cases and can lead to suicidal scenarios. Should the guy be allowed to have this obligation lifted as a means to deal with the suicide risk?
Arguing that the girl is more affected, because she is carrying the child, is both irrelevant and arguable, after all; pregnancy lasts nine months, child maintenance, and the threat of ongoing legal cases, up to 23 years (in some cases for the rest of your life), and while this is a financial pressure, last time I checked financial pressures are a major cause of suicide and a suicide risk is a suicide risk at the end of the day.
Now, I can't see that being legislated for, but if not then the law is clearly inconsistent, illogical and, ultimately, sexist then. One could argue that the difference between the above guy and a pregnant woman is the old (viable) child argument versus foetus argument (respectively), but legally Irish law does not differentiate.
The whole suicide thing is absolute nonsense. As much as the government is seeking to make such a suicide diagnosis difficult to achieve, I can guarantee that if such a law were passed, pro-choice clinics will have three doctors on staff within 12 months, there to rubber stamp anyone who comes into them. You may even be able to see all three on the same day.
It's all about de facto introducing abortion to Ireland, while pretending we're not.
In saying all this, I'm not taking any position pro or against abortion - this is principally a commentary on how this issue has been handled ever since the X Case (a classic example of how an extreme case leads to poor legislation that still haunts us today).
I can't help but note however, that the entire topic seems to be about giving women another reproductive right, while men still remain without any.0 -
It's still non sequitur.
In reality, how does the prohibition of abortion for suicidal women help men who are suicidal at the prospect of fatherhood? These are two separate issues, and they should be addressed each in turn.0 -
Indeed, however it points the lack of forethought in any such policy - as introducing one logically would lead to the other in turn.It's still non sequitur.
In reality, how does the prohibition of abortion for suicidal women help men who are suicidal at the prospect of fatherhood? These are two separate issues, and they should be addressed each in turn.
However, the principle point (which my example highlighted) is not really about how one gender would have this and the other not. It is that something like abortion would be considered a viable treatment for suicidal tendencies. If one feels, as most would, that allowing a man to avoid parental responsibilities is an insane 'treatment' to deal with the risk of suicide, then why does it make sense as a treatment for women?
Either you accept both or neither and Prof Malone's position appears to consider this an invalid treatment overall, and honestly I don't disagree.0 -
Advertisement
-
So this is essentially a slippery slope argument?
Avoiding parental responsibility can affect both genders equally where it occurs post-partum so this has no relevance on legislating for X.
The unavoidable issue is that there is no biological equivalent for men to be pregnant. Until there is, he can't make such a comparison. If we don't legislate for X, we are saying that suicide is an acceptable way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. This benefits no-one.0 -
No it's not. It's highlighting the logic behind the treatment and showing that if you apply it inconsistently where the same criteria are satisfied (the threat of suicide) then the logic simply fails to stand up to scrutiny.So this is essentially a slippery slope argument?
Actually that's not true. In the case of an unmarried mother she may do so through adoption even without the consent of the father.Avoiding parental responsibility can affect both genders equally where it occurs post-partum so this has no relevance on legislating for X.
Irrelevant as what I'm discussing is not abortion but how we 'treat' suicide risks and last time I checked you can be suicidal without getting pregnant yourself. The criticism that has been raised is that simply complying with the demand of a suicidal patient is a ridiculous form of treatment. For example, were someone to threaten "if you leave me I'll kill myself", should they simply stay with the suicidal person?The unavoidable issue is that there is no biological equivalent for men to be pregnant.
Regardless of one's position on abortion, it is very difficult to ethically justify such a course of 'treatment' for someone who is a suicide risk and in reality that's not how we do treat suicide risks - so why is it suddenly a viable treatment now?
The reason is political; one one side the government does not want to be seen supporting suicide, yet also wants to placate calls for it. It's applying dodgy logic and poor medical practice to deal with a political problem.
All I've said is that simply giving a suicidal patient what they demand is a ridiculous treatment for their condition, and has only been introduced as a result of political expediency.Until there is, he can't make such a comparison. If we don't legislate for X, we are saying that suicide is an acceptable way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. This benefits no-one.
Extrapolating this to suggest that suicide is an acceptable way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy is nonsensical and/or a strawman.0 -
Looks suspiciously like a slippery slope to me, but I'll go with your later clarification.The Corinthian wrote: »I believe what is being argued is that it turns (threat of) suicide into a legitimate justification for certain actions - and only for women, which in itself either makes no sense or in principle allows for similar actions for men who threaten suicide.
Right. This still has nothing to do with X, can we agree to disregard it?The Corinthian wrote: »Actually that's not true. In the case of an unmarried mother she may do so through adoption even without the consent of the father.
Requesting an abortion is not the same as manipulating someone into remaining in a relationship. The only common denominator is suicidality. We wouldn't encourage someone to stay in such a relationship in order to avoid 'giving in' but because we recognise that we cannot compel others to be in a state they have no desire to. Exactly like a woman who finds herself pregnant, and doesn't want to be. There is a question of context here.TheCorinthian wrote: »The criticism that has been raised is that simply complying with the demand of a suicidal patient is a ridiculous form of treatment. For example, were someone to threaten "if you leave me I'll kill myself", should they simply stay with the suicidal person?
I'm not suggesting we mark it as a national holiday. I am logically pointing out that a failure to legislate for X means we accept that women may die by suicide if they have no access to abortion. If we accept that, then it's acceptable.TheCorinthian wrote: »Extrapolating this to suggest that suicide is an acceptable way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy is nonsensical and/or a strawman.
I don't accept his position. We assess suicidal ideation and offer the best strategy to manage it. If a woman is requesting an abortion then what is the alternative? We can't detain under the mental health act because the last time I checked, suicidality alone doth not a mental disorder make. Do we criminalise procuring an abortion and have her imprisoned? Do we counsel her and hope she changes her mind? Maybe give her neuroleptics with the inherent risks to her and the foetus. Or do we just leave her to get the boat? It doesn't really matter though, and this is a key point that Prof Malone has missed, suicidality in the context of an unwanted pregnancy has been made an exception by the supreme court and it must be legislated for.The Corinthian wrote: »It is that something like abortion would be considered a viable treatment for suicidal tendencies...Either you accept both or neither and Prof Malone's position appears to consider this an invalid treatment overall, and honestly I don't disagree.0 -
If he doesn't kill himself, then he'll be liable for maintenance etc. If he does than obviously he won't.
It just won't come into it in any way, shape or form. I can understand an argument though where if the husbands life was at risk at the thought of having a child, then a case should be made that he should have the right to demand an abortion.
No way should anyone have any right to demand what a woman dose with her pregnancy, the only person making that decision should be the woman, what an awful evil thing to even suggest, I am appalled0 -
I think the point being illustrated is that if suicide is a valid grounds for an abortion for a woman, then by extension logic suggests that it is also for a male.Jessica-Rabbit wrote: »No way should anyone have any right to demand what a woman dose with her pregnancy, the only person making that decision should be the woman, what an awful evil thing to even suggest, I am appalled
Lets pretend then for argument that rather than a physical abortion it's a legal instrument being used in this case.0 -
If it were a slippery slope argument, I would not have followed up the hypothetical extension of the logic with "I can't see that being legislated for".Looks suspiciously like a slippery slope to me, but I'll go with your later clarification.
You claimed "parental responsibility can affect both genders equally where it occurs post-partum" which is false and you needed to be corrected on this myth. As for it having nothing to do with the X Case, neither does your average unplanned pregnancy, but I suspect it will also be potentially covered by the upcoming legislation - or are the proposed criteria that the woman is a suicide risk and victim of rape?Right. This still has nothing to do with X, can we agree to disregard it?
You're going to have to give us a better differentiator between them than you simply believing they're different.Requesting an abortion is not the same as manipulating someone into remaining in a relationship. The only common denominator is suicidality.
Both cases see a suicide risk that directly or indirectly cites an issue as the cause for that risk, except in one case you feel a viable treatment is to simply eliminate that issue and the other it's wrong to do so.
So if there is a question of context, you're going to have to explain what it is.
Your first error is claiming that I have argued that we should not legislate for the X Case - I've not; I've only argued that what is presently proposed is a classic "Irish solution to an Irish problem" - a flawed and half-baked solution.I'm not suggesting we mark it as a national holiday. I am logically pointing out that a failure to legislate for X means we accept that women may die by suicide if they have no access to abortion. If we accept that, then it's acceptable.
Secondly, you appear to be ignoring the point that's been repeatedly been made where it is being questioned whether simply acceding to the demands of a suicidal person is an ethical or even rational treatment.
Remember, this is not actually about abortion, it's about suicide. So please try to address that.
And if she, or a man, requests that their partner does not leave them, then what is the alternative there? You've as yet failed to explain why they are medically different scenarios.I don't accept his position. We assess suicidal ideation and offer the best strategy to manage it. If a woman is requesting an abortion then what is the alternative?
This is important because constitutionally that foetus is seen as possessing the same rights as the absconding partner - you may feel it should not been seen so, but we're talking in the context of Irish legislation. As such, legally you can't treat one one way and not the other.
Even if it were not so seen and legally we could see a foetus as no more than an appendix, it still remains a dubious form of treatment. For example, were a person suffering from Body integrity identity disorder to threaten suicide unless they have their arm amputated, is our approach to treatment to facilitate this? It is their body, after all.
As I've repeatedly said, I'm not really discussing abortion, but flawed legislation drafted not on the basis of protecting anyone but on the basis of political expediency. I believe it is a daft approach to deal with suicide risk, which is independent of whether abortion should be legal or not.0 -
Rev Hellfire wrote: »I think the point being illustrated is that if suicide is a valid grounds for an abortion for a woman, then by extension logic suggests that it is also for a male.
Lets pretend then for argument that rather than a physical abortion it's a legal instrument being used in this case.
I do believe that a man ( father) should be given the rights to waiver all his rights of his child if he wishes, but the mere mention of demanding that a woman terminate her pregnancy because the father dose not want to be a part of the babies life for ANY reason is beyond appalling.0 -
Jessica-Rabbit wrote: »but the mere mention of demanding that a woman terminate her pregnancy because the father dose not want to be a part of the babies life for ANY reason is beyond appalling.
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that.0 -
Actually, I don't think anyone even mentioned it.Rev Hellfire wrote: »I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Actually, I don't think anyone even mentioned it.
Actually it was mentioned on the 1st page, read the thread before you post:)0
Advertisement