Doctors reject abortion motions

Paddy Cow

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

The AGM has also rejected abortion in the case of victims of rape or incest who become pregnant.

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has come up already but in the case of rape, what would be the criteria to get an abortion? How would the woman prove she had been raped? Would she have to name her attacker and go through a trial, even if she didn't want to? Only a small percentage of rape cases end in a conviction and most cases takes months and months to get a verdict, by which time it would be too late for an abortion. If the man was found not guilty, would this mean that not only did the woman go through the trauma of a trial but now she has to share custody of a man who raped her but was found legally innocent (and yes that does happen, just like men are found guilty by skanks who cry rape).

I am pro choice btw and would never expect a woman to go through a pregnancy if she didn't want to but I don't think it's as black and white as saying "abortion should be allowed in the case of rape". Abortion should be allowed but with the woman getting enough counselling beforehand that she is making an informed decision. The whole "abortion on demand" is scaremongering. It is easier to use contraception than have an abortion but contraception isn't 100% effective. My heart goes out to any woman or couple who are faced with having to make the decision on whether or not to go ahead with a pregnancy and I wouldn't judge them for their choice. They're the ones who will have to live with that choice forever.

Wildlife Actor

Seachmall wrote: »

It's fair.

I haven't answered the first or second questions for myself though, predominantly because I can't see any objective means by which to do so (and I think it demands an objective answer).

The third is subjective as far as I can see it and so my answer is that due to having no answers to the first two the mother's life must absolutely take priority.

But that's a cop out: not making a choice is a choice. It's one thing if you don't care (and I'm firmly of the belief that everybody is entitled not to care, and not to vote). But if you do care enough to, say, vote on it, you must make an effort. Saying that there is no objective answer is - at best - a justification for not voting.

And it's a perfectly acceptable thing to say that a mother's life must take priority. I agree. But maintaining that position - which relates to a specific (and many (Doctors at any rate) say, narrow) circumstance where one of two lives must be lost - has no bearing on the other question: when is the foetus (a) a human and (b) deserving of a right to get to birth. The conflation of these questions is a key factor in the non-conversation the country is having on this.

Seachmall

Love nor Money wrote: »

But that's a cop out: not making a choice is a choice. It's one thing if you don't care (and I'm firmly of the belief that everybody is entitled not to care, and not to vote). But if you do care enough to, say, vote on it, you must make an effort. Saying that there is no objective answer is - at best - a justification for not voting.

It's not a cop out. If the assertion that it is a life at point X (and all the rest) cannot be proven you are within reason to dismiss it as false.

And it's a perfectly acceptable thing to say that a mother's life must take priority. I agree. But maintaining that position - which relates to a specific (and many (Doctors at any rate) say, narrow) circumstance where one of two lives must be lost - has no bearing on the other question: when is the foetus (a) a human and (b) deserving of a right to get to birth. The conflation of these questions is a key factor in the non-conversation the country is having on this.

I can't answer (A) but I'll give my opinion on (B).

I reject the notion that the right to life is an absolute right. I think it's clear that it's not. We justify ending an attackers life to save our own and some of us justify ending someone's life as punishment or as a preventative measure.

Therefore the right to life, and any other right, is conditional. It is given by society and is revoked by society.

What conditions we set can be completely arbitrary. There's no absolute moral guideline by which to measure them. We can pick and choose. Sometimes (most times hopefully) we have reasons. Allowing killing of other "accepted" humans with a right to life would leave the potential for the destruction of society so we rightly outlaw it. There's no such risk with abortion. Even if you assume the moment of conception is the moment it is human ascribing that human a right to life is entirely and solely a personal preference.

I disagree with telling a woman she will have to endure 9 months of unwanted pregnancy because I have a bias towards the fetus. It affects me in no way. I see it similar to shaving a mans head completely because I'm opposed to comb-overs. It's none of my business. My own subjective opinions should not dictate someone else's life.

And in a hilariously ironic move I'll take this opinion to the ballot box.

Wildlife Actor

Seachmall wrote: »

It's not a cop out. If the assertion that it is a life at point X (and all the rest) cannot be proven you are within reason to dismiss it as false.

To say you can't prove it's life is like saying you can't prove it's not life. You've already accepted that distinguishing between one end and the other of the birth canal is silly, and given an example of viability much earlier. To say that it's "not proven" is inconsistent with that.

Seachmall wrote: »

I can't answer (A) but I'll give my opinion on (B).

I reject the notion that the right to life is an absolute right. I think it's clear that it's not. We justify ending an attackers life to save our own and some of us justify ending someone's life as punishment or as a preventative measure.

Therefore the right to life, and any other right, is conditional. It is given by society and is revoked by society.

What conditions we set can be completely arbitrary. There's no absolute moral guideline by which to measure them. We can pick and choose. Sometimes (most times hopefully) we have reasons. Allowing killing of other "accepted" humans with a right to life would leave the potential for the destruction of society so we rightly outlaw it. There's no such risk with abortion. Even if you assume the moment of conception is the moment it is human ascribing that human a right to life is entirely and solely a personal preference.

I disagree with telling a woman she will have to endure 9 months of unwanted pregnancy because I have a bias towards the fetus. It affects me in no way. I see it similar to shaving a mans head completely because I'm opposed to comb-overs. It's none of my business. My own subjective opinions should not dictate someone else's life.

And in a hilariously ironic move I'll take this opinion to the ballot box.

But would you not tell a woman that she had to endure the loss of her liberty for a lot longer than 9 months if she destroyed a child 5 minutes after birth?

With this question, I'm off to bed> What is wrong with saying, you are not required to endure 9 months of unwanted pregnancy if you make a decision at an early stage before the foetus has developed significantly, but if you allow the foetus to develop to such an extent that it reaches a certain point of humanity (yes, voted on, arbitrary, subjective, all the rest), then its right to make a go of it trumps, not your life, but your choice?

Seachmall

Love nor Money wrote: »

To say you can't prove it's life is like saying you can't prove it's not life.

You don't need to prove it is not life, the burden of proof rests upon the person making the positive assertion.

If there's a vote tomorrow on whether or not to officially recognise the existence of aliens I'd vote no. It's a claim without sufficient evidence and while it's possible I'm well within reason to reject it.

You've already accepted that distinguishing between one end and the other of the birth canal is silly, and given an example of viability much earlier. To say that it's "not proven" is inconsistent with that.

That's a point I've picked and "point X", for me, would be somewhere between there and conception. But there's no definitive point. And from what we can prove (which is very little) they're all as arbitrary as each other.

But would you not tell a woman that she had to endure the loss of her liberty for a lot longer than 9 months if she destroyed a child 5 minutes after birth?

Sure. She has alternative options after those 9 months. She doesn't have to have any responsibility for the child if she doesn't want to.

It also introduces the question about self-awareness. Many argue that it's fine to abort until the point of potential self-awareness or consciousness.

We occasionally deem it fit to end the life of the brain-dead. They could go on living with machines attached but we decide it's morally acceptable to "let them die" (we are refusing to sustain their life any further despite it being entirely feasible, much like abortion).

With this question, I'm off to bed> What is wrong with saying, you are not required to endure 9 months of unwanted pregnancy if you make a decision at an early stage before the foetus has developed significantly, but if you allow the foetus to develop to such an extent that it reaches a certain point of humanity (yes, voted on, arbitrary, subjective, all the rest), then its right to make a go of it trumps, not your life, but your choice?

If I'm reading it right you're asking why the mother should not have the choice to abort (for arbitrary reasons) because she either changed her mind or didn't decide quick enough and past the point where abortion becomes wrong?

I don't have an answer for that. Even if we accept it is 100% a human life with a human right to life maybe we should still give her the right to end it. Honestly, I'd probably be in favour of giving her that choice.

Here's a pretty well known short essay that addresses that issue (and argues in favour of allowing abortions). It's definitely worth a read if you haven't seen it already,

A Defense of Abortion

Pushtrak

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I see. So now every hard luck story since the foundation of the State is the evil Catholic Church's fault?

What precisely is your issue here? That perhaps the church hasn't always had issues? It's only recently? Would it help if I showed something from a Bishop of 1942? It's certainly informative politically...

http://books.google.ie/books?id=-xu8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Dr+Cornelius+Lucey+Salazar&source=bl&ots=V88XBvU1HO&sig=ntlK4iiO9NdgydWiE-0a0FyAyMo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_oNjUba0FqKL7AbjuICYBA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dr%20Cornelius%20Lucey%20Salazar&f=false

Salazar is frankly a dictator. But he is a dictator with a difference. His regime is authoritarian not totalitarian; his outlook is Christian, not materialistic or Pagan... he acknowledges that the government (of which he is the embodiment) is as subject to the moral law in its conduc of affairs as the individual in his private life... He is a perfect dictator if there ever was one.

Nodin

opinion guy wrote: »

Phil ???? Jakkass ????? Is that you ????

He'd never say "ye".