Abortion Discussion

Stark

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am not ok with it. No. I just don't see how you can legislate for it.

We could legislate for overseas abortions being illegal if we wanted to. It is illegal to take your child to another country to have he/she killed for example regardless of the laws of the country you're travelling to. Gary Glitter was prevented from travelling by the UK government a while back because he intended to abuse children in other countries. We allow women to have abortions abroad because that's what we the Irish people wanted. A handy way to export the problem.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Abortion has a toll on a woman as well and on the father and on the fetus / unborn baby.

Regardless of what the father may feel, it's not his body. And the abortion having negative psychological consequences thing is a pro-life myth. And if it is the case that the pro-life lobby are so concerned about a woman's psychological well being, why do they insist she travel for treatment?

alaimacerc

Balmed Out wrote: »

Any reasonable person will agree that at some time between the fertilization of an egg and birth there is a point where a life is formed and that it is not acceptable to terminate that life.

Unfortunately we don't have a clue where that point is and we must try to make somewhat of an arbitrary judgment.

I don't see how it's "reasonable" to claim something is "obviously" true, and yet that it's completely impossible to determine what that thing is.

"A life" is a somewhat meaningless term without additional context. A six-week human embryo is very clearly alive. It's individuated in the sense that one of them isn't going to give rise to twins (or two of them to a chimera). What it's not at all developmentally well-distinguished from is any other six-week mammalian embryo.

For me that's brain activity. When I made that decision I didn't know if it was 2 weeks or 8 months.

I don't see how it helps us that you went "all in, in the dark" on this. If you didn't know when brain activity develops, how meaningful is your understanding of the significance of this? You do realize that the formation of the nervous system and degrees of organised activity therein is, itself, very much a gradual thing, right? How meaningful is it to talk about "brain activity" as the formational characteristic of "a human life" when you're apparently referring to the type of "activity" no different from that of much different organisms at a similar developmental point?

Some believe that point is the fertilization of the egg, some when its implanted in the womb, has a heart beat, has brain activity, a nervous system, has all major organs, has sexual organs, looks like a baby etc etc right up till its breathing air.

Not, you realize, in that order, right?

Dont argue with me about choices and rights. Argue with me about when is life.

It doesn't make any sense to attempt to dictate to people how they should argue with you. After all, it's not merely you they're trying to convince (if they even have any such hope).

Society must dictate some rules. If someone doesn't believe some ethnic minority has a right to live we as a society can and should enforce our ethics over theirs, their beliefs and choices are rendered irrelevant. That's an extreme example but the point stands. When it comes to a fetus the truth is we don't actually know but if as a society we come to a majority view point that its arbitrary developmental point 'X' then surely we should not allow termination after that point regardless of an individuals own opinion?

And yet, I don't see how that's not an argument framed in terms of "rights". Essentially you're saying there's a simple, crisp cutoff between "no rights" for the developing entity and "full rights equal to that of the pregnant woman". But as you don't know where the cutoff is, the idea of it being crisp lacks much credibility. And the idea of no distinction between a [minimum of whatever developmental range you pick] and a woman who's a full natural and legal person lacks any reasonableness, logic, or empathy for the vast majority of people, I think.

alaimacerc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The thing that tends to mark out the so called Pro-Life crew is that they believe in souls. A fertilized egg can't have thoughts or feelings, happiness or pain. It's a single cell with less independent life than an amoeba.

But apparently, it can have a microscopic little eternal soul.

Or two (or more), as some of them develop into twins (or triplets, etc). Or apparently sometimes none, as some of them undergo chimeric fusion, and I'm assuming that having two souls in one body would be problematic.

Yes, I realize that the anti-choice lot here rarely couch the argument in such terms explicitly. But it's hard to hear absolutist talk of "a human life" without first, hearing loud "wooo" noises, and secondly, wondering how they plan to frame such a proposition as distinct from the above.

alaimacerc

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Also, the DNA from that moment is formed. The personality, the physical make up, you name it is all there in the plan.

You keep saying this sort of thing. But happily, unlike many of the fuzzy arguments used in these sorts of debates, this one is testable and falsifiable. And indeed, already falsified.

TheChizler

alaimacerc wrote: »

You keep saying this sort of thing. But happily, unlike many of the fuzzy arguments used in these sorts of debates, this one is testable and falsifiable. And indeed, already falsified.

Don't be crazy, for example, identical twins always have the exact same personalities, it's their DNA shur.

irishpancake

Absolam wrote: »

I doubt it's troubling their minds; if they believe it they believe it. Just as Muslims believe sharia law transcends civil law. Neither is amenable to debate, so what's the point?

What you said earlier:

Surely from an RCC point of view the Constitution is irrelevant anyway since civil law does not rise to the level of canon law?

And when alysisous rightly answered:

Sure isn't that what's troubling the minds of some of our RCC fellow-citizens, the RCC telling the faithful and others that the rights of their fellow-citizens are trumped by it's rules, that Rome-rule is the primary law here?

Your reply:

I doubt it's troubling their minds; if they believe it they believe it. Just as Muslims believe sharia law transcends civil law. Neither is amenable to debate, so what's the point?

You have evidence regarding those statements, regarding "Muslims"....[presumably meaning all Muslims]??

All Muslims believe Sharia transcends civil law, and this is not amenable to debate??

No Muslims believe otherwise??

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Support

A 2013 survey based on the opinion of 38,000 individuals by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that support for making sharia the official law of the land varies significantly among Muslims in different countries. In countries across South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa region, a majority favours making sharia their country’s official legal code. By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land; among the surveyed countries outside of these regions, Lebanon, Chad, Guinea-Bissau and Tanzania also have a majority against the introduction of official sharia.

Since the 1970s, the Islamist movements have become prominent; their goals are the establishment of Islamic states and sharia not just within their own borders; their means are political in nature. The Islamist power base is the millions of poor, particularly urban poor moving into the cities from the countryside. They are not international in nature (one exception being the Muslim Brotherhood). Their rhetoric opposes western culture and western power. Political groups wishing to return to more traditional Islamic values are the source of threat to Turkey's secular government. These movements can be considered neo-Sharism.

Fundamentalists, wishing to return to basic religious values and law, have in some instances imposed harsh sharia punishments for crimes, curtailed civil rights and violated human rights. These movements are most active in areas of the world where there was contact with Western colonial powers.

And yet you hold that "all Muslims" can be compared directly with this RCC priesthood you cite as saying or believing that this "Canon Law" is superior to Civil Law, making our Constitution irrelevant??

By RCC, are you referring to The Church as understood in Vatican II, or just the Hierarchy, Pope, and priesthood.

When aloyisious says " the RCC telling the faithful and others that the rights of their fellow-citizens are trumped by it's rules, that Rome-rule is the primary law here?"

I think he means the RCC as in the Hierarchy/priesthood in Ireland, the faithful are ordinary non-clerical Catholics, who are as important a component part of the inclusive RC Church, the "People of God", united in Baptism, and of course fellow citizens are believers of other Faiths and non-believers in any Faith.

Quite a number of those Catholic People of God do not hold that Canon Law transcends Civil Law, and none of the "others" do either.

Like with Islam, there are fundamentalists who believe that Sharia transcends Civil Law, and there are those, the majority, who do not hold this viewpoint.

There are also RCC fundamentalists who believe likewise for their code of Canon Law, but they too are in a minority.

I do not believe even the Catholic Hierarchy or the priesthood now believe that to be a sustainable position, particularly in the Ireland which has experienced scandal after scandal relating to abuse by clerics who were protected by this Canon Law, and continued under that protection, to repeat and repeat the same abuse wherever they were moved.

There is no appetite any more for "Mental Reservation" as espoused by Connell, the Dublin Arch Bishop as a euphemism for lying through his teeth.

Or indeed the swearing a young abused boy to secrecy in relation to sexual abuse by a monster paedophile, who was allowed to continue abusing for years, due to a now retired Cardinal refusing to obey Civil Law and report the monster to the police.

Absolam

kylith wrote: »

Well, we're always being told that you don't have to be religious to be anti-choice. I've never met an anti-choice atheist though. It would be nice to know it's not a fib to try make it seem like not only the religious are anti-choice.

I don't think anyone claimed that? You may be confusing it with 'you don't have to be religious to be anti-abortion'. Have you ever met anyone who claimed to be anti-choice?

I haven't seen anyone on the thread claim to be anti-choice; anti-abortion and pro-life seem to be the preferred self-indentifiers (when people feel the need to be pigeonholed at all).
So if no one is claiming to be 'anti-choice' I have to wonder why Lazygal is waiting to hear from someone whom no-one has claimed to be, or even claimed exists?

Of course, if you then take someone who self identifies as athiest/agnostic and anti abortion, and tell them their version of anti abortion is actually a version of pro choice, and that despite being atheist/agnostic and anti abortion being pro-life is marked by believing in souls
you're kind of moving the goalposts to ensure that whoever does show up isn't the kind of person you meant wasn't showing up....

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm, I'm not sure if you're suggesting that we debate here whether Pro-side reps should just decline any invite to talk at an Anti-side rep, or maybe sit & thumb-twiddle, on the grounds that a debate was pointless. Should i imagine there is an inference that that is what we are doing here?...... oh, maybe I shouldn't ask that! :eek: It'd be a novel approach for a TV debate - imagine's the presenter having a meltdown, plus look of stunned realization on the face of the Anti rep. Surely you're not, you cannot be serious?

I'm suggesting that pointing out that the Catholic Church hasn't changed it's position on abortion to recognise the Irish States Constitutional position on abortion seems fairly redundant. The RCC can't consider any civil jurisdictions position on any subject as being worth considering compared to Gods position. So what is there to debate (with the RCC, as opposed to people who oppose abortion generally)?

Absolam

irishpancake wrote: »

What you said earlier: And when alysisous rightly answered: Your reply: You have evidence regarding those statements, regarding "Muslims"....[presumably meaning all Muslims]?? All Muslims believe Sharia transcends civil law, and this is not amenable to debate?? No Muslims believe otherwise?? And yet you hold that "all Muslims" can be compared directly with this RCC priesthood you cite as saying or believing that this "Canon Law" is superior to Civil Law, making our Constitution irrelevant??

Does it bother you that your entire argument is based on the fact that you inserted the word 'all' into my point?
You might do better to attempt to refute the point I made, rather than the one you would have liked me to have made.

irishpancake wrote: »

By RCC <...> police.

That's some fairly extravagant soap boxing to be based on inserting just one word into someone else's point. I don't think I even alluded to RCC sexual abuse....

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

But the people organizations that very heavily lobbied this don't reflect what people actually wanted back then and certainly don't reflect what people want now. <....> That shows just how out of touch these views are, they do not represent the people of Ireland then and they certainly don't know.

So if you accept that those views don't represent what people wanted back then, it must be another view that represented what they did want that caused them to vote to constitutionally protect the right to life of the unborn.
Follow your argument through and 'those views' will likely hold as little sway today as they did then. So the question is, do the views that carried the day back then still pertain today? They might.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone on the thread claim to be anti-choice; anti-abortion and pro-life seem to be the preferred self-indentifiers (when people feel the need to be pigeonholed at all).

They are. Are you planning on "policing" non-preferred usages in either case now?

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

They are. Are you planning on "policing" non-preferred usages in either case now?

They are what?
And no, I'm not policing it, I'm saying that if someone says "There are anti-abortion athiests", and someone else says, "No they must be anti-choice athiests", and then goes on to claim "no anti-choice athiests have appeared to support your assertion", they're rather ignoring the fact that the assertion was "anti abortion" not "anti choice".

SmilingLurker

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What about the fetus' right to have a life?

Here lies the nub of the issue. A foetus, especially early in gestation I and many others believe should not have a right to life. Especially if there is a threat to the woman carrying them. It should not be seen as murdering a child. Biologically it is potentially human life, with human DNA. Where is the line drawn is a big issue. Conception biologically should not endow rights a fully grown human has.

It is not an equivalent life to my wife, my daughter, my sister or my mother. If circumstances are right, it is wonderful to bring a child into the world.

Finally your boo hoo comment was unnecessarily rude if you believe like most people here that the lives are not equivalent.

Convince me why a foetus in the first trimester has a right to life?

Balmed Out

I'm well aware that the order isn't correct didn't feel it to be relevant. Gold star for pointing it out. Well done.

alaimacerc wrote: »

It doesn't make any sense to attempt to dictate to people how they should argue with you. After all, it's not merely you they're trying to convince (if they even have any such hope).

What I meant is that the usual arguments by pro and anti abortionists arent going to sway me. Its a tired debate.

What do you think ?
Seems from what you say that you would set some sort of arbitrary cut of point? Should we pick one the same as the UK or Europe for no reason other then they do it? Why if you feel its ok at 12 weeks is it not ok at 20 weeks?

Balmed Out

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, I realize that the anti-choice lot here rarely couch the argument in such terms explicitly. But it's hard to hear absolutist talk of "a human life" without first, hearing loud "wooo" noises, and secondly, wondering how they plan to frame such a proposition as distinct from the above.

This is a lot of what I hate about abortion debates. Assigning negative dismissive monikers to anyone who holds a different opinion to you, dismissing others opinions out of hand whilst at the same time not trying to even understand them and instead making assumptions about them.

Balmed Out

Macha wrote: »

It's not actually possible, as you say to determine when a fetus is 'alive' or not. So you're simply left with the choice of either picking a point, which most people across Europe seem to have agreed is 12 weeks

I agree with a lot of what you say but I disagree with 12 weeks. From a purely emotive point that's the first scan and looking back I couldn't see what I viewed on the screen as something disposable. Why do you choose 12, is it just from a pragmatic point of view? If you've never lived in the UK realize it takes weeks to just see a GP so I wouldn't be holding it up as a barometer of how things could work.

Zubeneschamali

If a fertilized egg has the same rights as a full-grown human: we need far, far more draconian anti-abortion laws.

Think of how the state reacts to the death of a 1 year old. We have a death certificate, an inquest, maybe police and social services investigate: parents may be charged with murder, manslaughter or neglect. We need all of that for every miscarriage. Did the mother smoke? Drink? Play tag rugby and fall down? Did her boyfried hit her? Murder!

Of course, to know about every miscarriage, we need every woman to be pregnancy tested every month.

Morning after pills and IVF are certainly murder. Pregnant women must not be allowed to travel to jurisdictions which allow baby murder, publishing information about baby-murdering services in the UK is incitement to murder or accessory to murder, and so on.

But here's the thing: nobody really believes this. So please, folks, stop arguing as if you do.

Cabaal

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Not all couples abort the fertilized eggs. What's your opinion on killing a baby as soon as it is born? Is that worse than killing the baby 5 seconds before it is born when it is still in the Woman's body?

You've not answered my question

I asked

If you believe a fertilized egg is so very special then what are your thoughts on fertilized eggs not being used by IVF doctors?

Is that abortion in your eye's?

I'm very clearly refering to a IVF doctor not implanting fertilized eggs into a women, this means that these eggs which are special in your eye's will eventually die by unnatural means.

Do you class this as a abortion?.

As for your silly baby question, in either case the 5 second old born baby or the 5 second pre-birth baby can survive without the mother. A fetus at for example 1 day, 5 weeks, 10 weeks etc cannot.

If a women killed a baby 5 seconds pre or post birth you'd be charged with murder in this country.

If the same women has an illegal abortion in Ireland at say 10 or 20 weeks she will not be charged with murder. She may just receive a fine or some prison time instead.

Stop trying to compare an abortion to murder, its nothing of the sort.

lazygal

Balmed Out wrote: »

This is a lot of what I hate about abortion debates. Assigning negative dismissive monikers to anyone who holds a different opinion to you, dismissing others opinions out of hand whilst at the same time not trying to even understand them and instead making assumptions about them.

Those who oppose abortion want every pregnancy to continue. They don't want other choices available. Is that not correct?

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Those who oppose abortion want every pregnancy to continue. They don't want other choices available. Is that not correct?

How do you say that when you've seen people say on this thread that they oppose abortion but feel there are occasions when it is justified? Or do you think that if you feel abortion is justified in some circumstances you cannot say you oppose abortion?

Balmed Out

lazygal wrote: »

Those who oppose abortion want every pregnancy to continue. They don't want other choices available. Is that not correct?

Many feel abortion is ok until a certain stage of development, others in cases of rape, fetal abnormalities or defect, non viability etc. I think the majority would feel that abortion is fine in certain circumstances with only a few radicals on either side disagreeing with that. Its what those circumstances are that's the bone of contention.

Macha

Balmed Out wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say but I disagree with 12 weeks. From a purely emotive point that's the first scan and looking back I couldn't see what I viewed on the screen as something disposable. Why do you choose 12, is it just from a pragmatic point of view? If you've never lived in the UK realize it takes weeks to just see a GP so I wouldn't be holding it up as a barometer of how things could work.

That's fine that you think that 5 weeks is the limit but what I've tried to point out is that in practical terms this time frame would mean a very large proportion of women wouldn't be able to a access an abortion.

It doesn't take weeks to see a GP in the UK, but it does take 2 weeks from your referral to the clinic by the GP, hence the unworkable time frame of only allowing abortions up to 5 weeks of pregnancy.

Peregrinus

The truth is that few, if any, people take an absolutist position at either extreme - that every fertilised egg must always be brought to term, no matter what, or, in the alternative, that there are never any circumstances in which we would seek to discourage or prevent a woman from terminating her pregnancy. Not many people call for the implantation of all not-yet-implanted fertilised eggs. Not many people are campaigning for a law permitting someone to terminate her viable pregnancy at 35 weeks for no stated reason. Most people, whether they identify as pro-life or pro-choice (or whether they are labelled by those who disagree with them as pro-death or anti-choice) have a somewhat more nuanced position. Pro-life people wills sometimes allow that deat must unfold. Pro-choice people will find there are some choices that they consider unconscionable. They both draw a line somewhere between the two extremes, though they disagree about where that line should be. The polarised nature of the debate about this issue, though, tends to obscure that, and encourages people to present their own position and/or their opponents position in absolutist terms which, when examined, prove not to be correct.

It’s tempting to criticise the other side as inconsistent or hypocritical if they fail to adopt the absolutist position that we want to ascribe to them. But before we do, reflect that exactly the same criticism could probably be made of our own position.

Balmed Out

Macha wrote: »

That's fine that you think that 5 weeks is the limit but what I've tried to point out is that in practical terms this time frame would mean a very large proportion of women wouldn't be able to a access an abortion.

It doesn't take weeks to see a GP in the UK, but it does take 2 weeks from your referral to the clinic by the GP, hence the unworkable time frame of only allowing abortions up to 5 weeks of pregnancy.

Very much depends on where you are in the UK and whats wrong with you. Im willing to debate the 5 weeks and perhaps push it out a little but id certainly feel more comfortable to be closer to that then 12 weeks. If it just from a pragmatic practical point of view that you would pick 12 weeks?

Balmed Out

Peregrinus wrote: »

The truth is that few, if any, people take an absolutist position at either extreme - that every fertilised egg must always be brought to term, no matter what, or, in the alternative, that there are never any circumstances in which we would seek to discourage or prevent a woman from terminating her pregnancy. Not many people call for the implantation of all not-yet-implanted fertilised eggs. Not many people are campaigning for a law permitting someone to terminate her viable pregnancy at 35 weeks for no stated reason. Most people, whether they identify as pro-life or pro-choice (or whether they are labelled by those who disagree with them as pro-death or anti-choice) have a somewhat more nuanced position. Pro-life people wills sometimes allow that deat must unfold. Pro-choice people will find there are some choices that they consider unconscionable. They both draw a line somewhere between the two extremes, though they disagree about where that line should be. The polarised nature of the debate about this issue, though, tends to obscure that, and encourages people to present their own position and/or their opponents position in absolutist terms which, when examined, prove not to be correct.

It’s tempting to criticise the other side as inconsistent or hypocritical if they fail to adopt the absolutist position that we want to ascribe to them. But before we do, reflect that exactly the same criticism could probably be made of our own position.

Great post

Vivisectus

The middle ground between two positions is not always the most reasonable position, however. Nor is it neccesarily bad to point out inconsistencies in someone's position. There is nothing wrong with having ethical limits based on instinct, but it IS important to realize that they are sometimes hard to justify rationally, and cannot reasonably be expected from other people. After all we are not just discussing opinions in a vacuum here - we are talking about political and legal decisions that have a huge impact on people.

Zubeneschamali

The vast majority of pro-choice people are against abortion in some cases, like late-term abortion on demand of a healthy fetus, for example.

Most Pro-Life people support abortion in some circumstances. Even the Catholic church has some theological baloney about how it supports abortion if it is not called abortion through some "double effect" language.

But the Pro-life movement in Ireland opposes all legal abortion in all cases (except the catholic church double effect not-abortion). The 1983 amendment was intended to copper-fasten the 1861 Offences against the Person act banning all abortion.

So in the context of the debate in Ireland, there is not much point in saying "I'm pro-life, but I believe in exceptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities and serious risks to the life or health of the mother".

That is a pro-choice position in Ireland: it requires liberalisation of our abortion laws.

So Balmed Out and Tim Robbins are both on the pro-choice side here.

And I have never met anyone who supports the Pro-Life campaign here in Ireland, who believes the 1861 act was correct and the amendment was trying to do the right thing, who was an atheist.

Balmed Out

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But the Pro-life movement in Ireland opposes all legal abortion in all cases

...

I have never met anyone who supports the Pro-Life campaign here in Ireland, who believes the 1861 act was correct and the amendment was trying to do the right thing, who was an atheist.

You're not likely to either when you get to stick whatever label you like on someone.
I am not pro life, pro choice, anti choice or pro death but to me it seems you believe for someone to describe themselves as anti abortion they would need to first be a card carrying member of an extremist group?

Zubeneschamali

Balmed Out wrote: »

I am not pro life, pro choice, anti choice or pro death but to me it seems you believe for someone to describe themselves as anti abortion they would need to first be a card carrying member of an extremist group?

I don't care if you call yourself anti-abortion, pro-death or any other label you like. I just care if you support liberalising our abortion law, tightening it, or leaving it alone.

The Pro-Life label tends to line up with folks in favour of 1861-style abortion bans, and Pro-Choice with total liberalisation, but I'm much more interested in how people feel about our law than what they call themselves.

A lot of the debate in this thread seems to be between folks who all want a more liberal regime than what we have, with an exception for FFA or rape, for example.

And I have never seen an atheist back the 1861 total ban.

Brian Shanahan

Macha wrote: »

Not long enough - to state the blindingly obvious. In the UK, you have to make an appointment with your GP, who will refer you to a clinic. You should get a first appointment within 5 working days when you will discuss your options and make a final decision. After that you will be given another appointment within five working days for the actual termination. That's two weeks assuming you go straight to a GP the second you are 4 weeks pregnant.

And the whole "brain activity at six weeks" is a red herring anyway. First of all the development of a foetal brain has barely begun at six weeks, and while it has been claimed that synapses have been witnessed to be firing from six weeks, there is no conformation in any scientific literature, the claim itself wasn't even submitted in papers, but in back and forth letters on another topic. The fact of the matter is that there is no structured brain activity before 20 weeks at all, and the brains function doesn't even begin to properly develop to the second half of pregnancy (citation), they don't begin to feel pain (an important regulatory function of the nervous system) until after 28 weeks (citation).

So if we are going to use brain development as a criterion for refusing abortion, in reality the cut off point in the UK of 24 weeks is a far better cut off than Balmed Out's 6 weeks (possible earliest detection of random synapse firing).