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
1…6791112…15

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    Zombrex wrote: »
    The right to an abortion is based on the principle that a woman is the owner of her body and must consent to how her body is used. If she does not consent to the foetus being in her body she has the right to remove it.
    Relatively few people would accept your position that very late term (e.g. 25-30 weeks) abortions should be available. So I don't believe she has this right you mention.


  • Options
    #243
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    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.


  • Options
    #244
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    Zombrex wrote: »
    The right to an abortion is based on the principle that a woman is the owner of her body and must consent to how her body is used. If she does not consent to the foetus being in her body she has the right to remove it.

    For this argument to stand up, you would have to be able to argue that there is nothing wrong with an abortion, up to a day before the due date for the birth. There is no difference at all, between a baby that is born one day premature and a baby that is born exactly on it's due date.

    But according to the argument you are making above, it is entirely acceptable, for the purposes of giving a woman full control over her own body, that we provide for a woman to be able to have an abortion, possibly a day or even a few hours before she is due to give birth? There is no other way of interpreting what you are asking for there...


  • Options
    #245
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Please refer to both the paragraph that begins with "Secondly, the impact the consequences of any pregnancy are not simply that pregnancy" and the one I referred to Piliger.

    De facto that's what it is, unless we want to pretend that this is not the principle motivation in the vast majority of cases and only a fortunate by-product of the procedure.

    No that is not "what it is". The motivation for abortion is irrelevant to the principle argument for why it should be available. We don't give women abortions because we think they shouldn't have to raise children if they don't want to, but then refuse to give men the same option.

    The argument for abortion is one of bodily privacy, a right that men have as much as women. There is no discrimination here.


  • Options
    #246
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    iptba wrote: »
    Relatively few people would accept your position that very late term (e.g. 25-30 weeks) abortions should be available. So I don't believe she has this right you mention.

    How many people accept it doesn't seem relevant. If one says that it is the woman's body and she has to consent to what happens to it I can't see any argument that this some how doesn't apply at certain periods based on the age of the foetus. What does the age of the foetus have to do with whether a woman does or doesn't own her own body, and whether they must consent to how their body is used?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Zombrex wrote: »
    No that is not "what it is". The motivation for abortion is irrelevant to the principle argument for why it should be available.
    Actually we do precisely that - it's a remarkable hypocrisy that we are so loathed to admit it. So no, I don't accept your point.
    The argument for abortion is one of bodily privacy, a right that men have as much as women. There is no discrimination here.
    The financial and social effects of parenthood, even if uninvolved, do indeed have an affect upon health, as I pointed out in my first post, so no - even on that score you are incorrect.


  • Options
    #248
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    Zombrex wrote: »
    No that is not "what it is". The motivation for abortion is irrelevant to the principle argument for why it should be available. We don't give women abortions because we think they shouldn't have to raise children if they don't want to, but then refuse to give men the same option.

    The argument for abortion is one of bodily privacy, a right that men have as much as women. There is no discrimination here.

    But that argument provides for an abortion up to the moment of pregnancy. How come in your view, there is no issue whatsoever killing an unborn child just immediately before the mother goes into labour, (the deliberate termination of the life inside the mothers womb), but to bring about the exact same result (the deliberate termination of the life outside the mothers womb), a few minutes after labour, is infanticide, punishable by a mandatory life sentence? That just sounds like a downright odd & bizarre thing to be arguing in favour of in my opinion.


  • Options
    #249
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    For this argument to stand up, you would have to be able to argue that there is nothing wrong with an abortion, up to a day before the due date for the birth.

    No, for that argument to hold up you would have to argue that a woman owns her own body and must consent to how it is used.

    How "wrong" abortion is is up to the individual. If a woman has a late term abortion you are free to think it is a horrible self thing to do (just like thinking Draw Mohammad day is terrible exercise in free speech). I personally would be very critical of a woman having a late term abortion that risked the life of the child unless she had very pressing reasons.
    HellFireClub wrote: »
    There is no difference at all, between a baby that is born one day premature and a baby that is born exactly on it's due date.

    Correct.
    HellFireClub wrote: »
    But according to the argument you are making above, it is entirely acceptable, for the purposes of giving a woman full control over her own body, that we provide for a woman to be able to have an abortion, possibly a day or even a few hours before she is due to give birth? There is no other way of interpreting what you are asking for there...

    I don't know what you mean by "entirely acceptable"? There is no ethical justification for making it illegal since it is the woman's body and she must consent to how it is used. She cannot be forced to have her body used by or for someone else.

    If she decides two days before she is scheduled to give birth that she wants an abortion she can, though in that case an abortion is really just a birth by C-section.

    You are also free to think this is a terrible thing to do.


  • Options
    #250
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    But that argument provides for an abortion up to the moment of pregnancy. How come in your view, there is no issue whatsoever killing an unborn child just immediately before the mother goes into labour, (the deliberate termination of the life inside the mothers womb), but to bring about the exact same result (the deliberate termination of the life outside the mothers womb), a few minutes after labour, is infanticide, punishable by a mandatory life sentence? That just sounds like a downright odd & bizarre thing to be arguing in favour of in my opinion.

    Who said anything about "killing an unborn child" just immediately before labour? I would be very surprised if a foetus that close to birth didn't survive once removed from the woman's body.


  • Options
    #251
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    Zombrex wrote: »
    What does the age of the foetus have to do with whether a woman does or doesn't own her own body, and whether they must consent to how their body is used?
    What about the right of a man to his own money, so he must consent to how it is used?

    Or that a man must consent to how their body is used while if he is landed with the responsibilities of a child, he would have to do things he might not want e.g. work or work more, to earn the money being requested of him, etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Who said anything about "killing an unborn child" just immediately before labour? I would be very surprised if a foetus that close to birth didn't survive once removed from the woman's body.
    Depends how it's removed. I believe that if you remove it via an induced breach birth and extract the brain through an incision, before the head emerges at the end, it tends not to survive.


  • Options
    #253
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    The financial and social effects of parenthood, even if uninvolved, do indeed have an affect upon health, as I pointed out in my first post, so no - even on that score you are incorrect.

    What point am I incorrect on? I've no doubt that parenthood is has both financial and social effects, but that has nothing to do with the ethical justification for abortion, as has been pointed out.


  • Options
    #254
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Depends how it's removed. I believe that if you remove it via an induced breach birth and extract the brain through an incision, before the head emerges at the end, it tends not to survive.

    Well yes, and I'm sure if you remove it by throwing the woman down stairs it doesn't survive either.

    The doctors should remove it in the manner that has the greatest chance of survival, balancing with the health risks to the mother of such a procedure.


  • Options
    #255
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Who said anything about "killing an unborn child" just immediately before labour? I would be very surprised if a foetus that close to birth didn't survive once removed from the woman's body.

    That is exactly what you are advocating for when you come out with an absolute statement like, "we have to give a woman the right to decide what she does with her own body, it's her choice"...

    I would genuinely have a major problem letting anyone with these kind of absolute and totalitarian views, near children. I don't see any difference between someone like yourself, who believes that abortion should be a right, regardless of how advanced the pregnancy is, (in line with your stated view that a woman has an absolute right to do with her body as she chooses, even providing for an abortion up to pregnancy), and someone who takes a new born baby and drowns them in a bath. There is no difference whatsoever.


  • Options
    #256
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    iptba wrote: »
    Or that a man must consent to how their body is used while if he is landed with the responsibilities of a child, he would have to do things he might not want e.g. work or work more, to earn the money being requested of him, etc.

    You don't seem to understand what the principle of bodily privacy is.

    If you want to argue that parents, male or female, should be able to abandon their children because they don't want to look after them, go ahead, it would be interesting to see how far you get with that one ...


  • Options
    #257
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    That is exactly what you are advocating for when you come out with an absolute statement like, "we have to give a woman the right to decide what she does with her own body, it's her choice"...

    Only if you don't understand anything about biology.

    Premature babies survive outside of the woman's body all the time, especially if they are only a few days early. What, you think if your wife or girlfriend goes into labour 2 days early it means your child is going to be dead on arrival?
    HellFireClub wrote: »
    I would genuinely have a major problem letting anyone with these kind of absolute and totalitarian views. I don't see any difference between someone like yourself, who believes that abortion should be a right, regardless of how advanced the pregnancy is, (in line with your stated view that a woman has an absolute right to do with her body as she chooses, even providing for an abortion up to pregnancy), and someone who takes a new born baby and drowns them in a bath. There is no difference whatsoever.

    Well I think that speaks your inability to understand what we are talking about than anything else.


  • Options
    #258
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Only if you don't understand anything about biology.

    Premature babies survive outside of the woman's body all the time, especially if they are only a few days early. What, you think if your wife or girlfriend goes into labour 2 days early it means your child is going to be dead on arrival?

    Yes, but if I understand you correctly, you believe that an abortion should be available for a woman at any stage in her pregnancy, for any reason or for no particular reason at all, in line with your stated belief that she should be allowed full and unfettered control over that body at all times, do I understand you correctly there?


  • Options
    #259
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You don't seem to understand what the principle of bodily privacy is.

    If you want to argue that parents, male or female, should be able to abandon their children because they don't want to look after them, go ahead, it would be interesting to see how far you get with that one ...
    I think the principles are the same: society gives people responsibilities because they were involved in creating the child, which interfere with other rights i.e. people may generally have the right to bodily privacy, but if they had sex they are putting themselves in a position where many people would argue this right needs to be counterbalanced with the responsibility to the unborn child. That is one of the reasons why many would argue people don't have a right to a very late term abortion.


  • Options
    #260
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Zombrex wrote: »
    What point am I incorrect on? I've no doubt that parenthood is has both financial and social effects, but that has nothing to do with the ethical justification for abortion, as has been pointed out.
    So socio-economic factors have no baring on health? Grand so.

    Sorry Zomb, but I can see that this discussion is not going to get past the cherry-picking defence here despite the fact that I cited the points in my argument in my initial post, including motivation, biological differences and consequences.

    I think I'll bow out now.


  • Options
    #261
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Yes, but if I understand you correctly, you believe that an abortion should be available for a woman at any stage in her pregnancy, for any reason or for no particular reason at all, in line with your stated belief that she should be allowed full and unfettered control over that body at all times, do I understand you correctly there?

    You do. I suspect the point you are failing to understand is that abortion does not equal "kill your unborn baby".

    A woman has the right to remove the foetus from her body. That is where her right to bodily privacy ends. The foetus if it is too premature might not survive outside of the woman's body, or if it is mature enough, it might survive outside of the woman's body. Either of those outcomes are independent to the abortion. The woman has no more right to walk over to her baby and bash it on the head because she had an abortion than she does to her 5 year old.

    AFAIK doctors who perform abortions on babies that are so premature they will never survive euthanasing the babies rather than leaving them to simply die naturally on their own or during the procedure. I don't have strong objections to that, but if you want to object to that and argue that they should be left to die naturally go ahead, that is an argument against euthanasia, not abortion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If you don't like the result, fair enough. However, this is where such logic ultimately leads, even if one did not originally intend it to.
    As you said in your post "If that is your opinion, fair enough; I'll accept it on that basis.".

    It is not, however, correct in my opinion :)


  • Options
    #263
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You seem to be still missing the point.

    If you consider the foetus has "100% human rights" before birth that doesn't change the argument.

    The argument is still that it is the woman's body and she must consent to how it is used. That argument is independent to any notion of how much of a person with rights the foetus is.

    You are correct in that that is the argument. My point was to establish that it is an argument that ultimately fails.


  • Options
    #264
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    So socio-economic factors have no baring on health? Grand so.

    "Health"? What the hell are you talking about TC? Is this another one of your I'm just going to argue for the sake of it rants?

    Your reasoning for why women are allowed abortions, and thus why men should be some how compensated by being granted the right to abandon their children, is nonsensical.

    Abortion is a bodily privacy issue. Men and women have the same rights when it comes to bodily privacy. If a foetus some how wound up in a mans body he would have the same right to remove it as the woman does.

    Face it, there is no discrimination.


  • Options
    #265
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Piliger wrote: »
    You are correct in that that is the argument. My point was to establish that it is an argument that ultimately fails.

    By what standard? What is the ethical justification for the State taking over ownership of the woman's body on behalf of the foetus?


  • Options
    #266
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Please refer to both the paragraph that begins with "Secondly, the impact the consequences of any pregnancy are not simply that pregnancy" and the one I referred to Piliger.

    De facto that's what it is, unless we want to pretend that this is not the principle motivation in the vast majority of cases and only a fortunate by-product of the procedure.

    Except that although it may be the motivation for the act, it is NOT the basis on which the Right is exercised. It is exercised on the basis of control over her body, and not abdication of rights and responsibilities.


  • Options
    #267
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    iptba wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #268
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    iptba wrote: »
    I think the principles are the same: society gives people responsibilities because they were involved in creating the child, which interfere with other rights i.e. people may generally have the right to bodily privacy, but if they had sex they are putting themselves in a position where many people would argue this right needs to be counterbalanced with the responsibility to the unborn child. That is one of the reasons why many would argue people don't have a right to a very late term abortion.

    Ok, if you want to argue that the foetus has more right to the woman's body than the woman does, go ahead (ie argue against bodily autonomy/privacy)

    But this still has nothing to do with giving fathers the right to abandon their children because women can have abortions, one of the most nonsensical arguments I've heard in a long time.


  • Options
    #269
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You do. I suspect the point you are failing to understand is that abortion does not equal "kill your unborn baby".

    A woman has the right to remove the foetus from her body. That is where her right to bodily privacy ends. The foetus if it is too premature might not survive outside of the woman's body, or if it is mature enough, it might survive outside of the woman's body. Either of those outcomes are independent to the abortion. The woman has no more right to walk over to her baby and bash it on the head because she had an abortion than she does to her 5 year old.

    AFAIK doctors who perform abortions on babies that are so premature they will never survive euthanasing the babies rather than leaving them to simply die naturally on their own or during the procedure. I don't have strong objections to that, but if you want to object to that and argue that they should be left to die naturally go ahead, that is an argument against euthanasia, not abortion.

    I just hope you never manage to get elected as minister for health in this country. This is the stuff of the Third Reich & the kind of bizarre medical adventurism that they pursued.


  • Options
    #270
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    I just hope you never manage to get elected as minister for health in this country. This is the stuff of the Third Reich & the kind of bizarre medical adventurism that they pursued.

    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:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Ok, if you want to argue that the foetus has more right to the woman's body than the woman does, go ahead (ie argue against bodily autonomy/privacy)
    I am arguing there are competing rights and responsibilities. Your position is that the woman has no responsibilities.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    But this still has nothing to do with giving fathers the right to abandon their children because women can have abortions
    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.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    one of the most nonsensical arguments I've heard in a long time.
    :rolleyes: Given you are somebody whose position is that a woman should be able to have an abortion right up to birth, your ability to judge what is nonsensical is questionable.


Advertisement