woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

irishpancake

marienbad wrote: »

Not really, very few if any laws are based on individual opinion . They are based on public opinion, precedent,historical experience and a whole host of other factors .

Except of course, in dictatorships, and then usually only those laws which are based upon a pet opinion belief system of the particular dictator or his/her political movement.

volchitsa

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It is a strawman. Quite clearly. All laws are based on opinion. This is a fact. Society believes something is wrong so it is made illegal. This includes old laws on slavery or in fact any that are sexist, racist or homophobic. Someone believes something is wrong and it is made illegal. This also includes laws on murder, theft, fraud, public order, liquor licencing. All laws. No exception. Your argument is that opinion should not be forced on others. I'm telling you that is the whole basis of a legal system.

To try and compare the opinion of someone who does not believe in abortion to a racist is just pathetic. It has absolutely no grounding or reasonable logic. You are using the argument against what is the basis of every legal system to trying to superimpose it over the argument on abortion in some nonsensical way.

Umm, it's not a straw man. This is what a straw man argument is :

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

http : // en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (can't post links yet so you may need to copy and paste, after removing the extra spaces.)

You disagree with my analogy, but that isn't a straw man.

As for the analogy, the fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't a good one.
You repeat that all law is just opinion, and therefore majority opinion is the most valid basis for law. So if that is true, white majority racist opinion wins out over the opinion of the black minority victims of racist law, and a majority of people who don't want an abortion win out over the pregnant women wanting one.

There really is no difference in the logic behind both those situations. However ill at ease that makes you.

irishpancake

myshirt wrote: »

I wonder has one person managed to successfully convert another to their view via this thread?

Probably not........

but it is useful nonetheless, as a vehicle for exposing the obfuscation, counter-factual fantasies, misrepresentation of known facts and downright lying of the so-called "Pro-life", actually Anti-choice, lobby which infest boards and fora such as these.

They need to be confronted by people who are confident in their knowledge of the facts, and able to argue the case from a Pro-life and Pro-choice point of view.

For far too long these fundamentalist fanatics have been allowed to set the agenda for debate in Ireland, which has lead directly to the mess we have been landed in, as a Society, which somehow managed to insert an Amendment into our basic law, our Constitution, a Statement, Article 40.3.3, which is fundamentally flawed, impossible to implement and open to opposite interpretations, even opposite to the intent of those, like Binchey, who drafted this ridiculous insertion.

It needs to go, and we need to trust those we elect to legislate in the common good, as in all other democracies.

It, this 40.3.3, is an aberration and a monument to just how immature we are as a Republic and a Democracy.

Piliger

myshirt wrote: »

I wonder has one person managed to successfully convert another to their view via this thread?

Why would you expect that ? Discussion is not about converting and most certainly it is not about admitting being converted. People come to positions over time. Often they inherit a position from parents and from their religion. If they ever do change their position, it happens over a period of time.
In addition you need to realise that generally speaking people are very sensitive about being seen to change their minds. This is why it is very important if you actually encounter someone that you want to change, never ask them to take a view because that view will 99% be their previous view.
But if you leave it and leave them to get on with their process in private, you will sometimes find that they do eventually come toward your viewpoint, if not all the way.

irishpancake

volchitsa wrote: »

Umm, it's not a straw man. This is what a straw man argument is :
http : // en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (can't post links yet so you may need to copy and paste, after removing the extra spaces.)

You disagree with my analogy, but that isn't a straw man.

As for the analogy, the fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't a good one.
You repeat that all law is just opinion, and therefore majority opinion is the most valid basis for law. So if that is true, white majority racist opinion wins out over the opinion of the black minority victims of racist law, and a majority of people who don't want an abortion win out over the pregnant women wanting one.

There really is no difference in the logic behind both those situations. However ill at ease that makes you.

And of course, we in Ireland should know just how dangerous this simple, and simplistic, Majoritarianism is.

We had it for 50 years or more, in the North of Ireland, where an in-built, sectarian, majority in a State were able to claim they were acting in a Democratic fashion, by ensuring the Minority population were treated as second-class citizens, all under the guise of what was a gerrymandered political system which was designed to ensure the built-in sectarian Majority always had the levers of power and influence, and the built-in sectarian Minority had nothing, or as little as the Majority could get away with.

Of course real Democracies ensure that the Human and Civil Rights of Minorities are protected and vindicated by the Law and Constitution, and the State, by it's policies and the implementation of those rights in a fair and equitable manner.

marienbad

irishpancake wrote: »

Except of course, in dictatorships, and then usually only those laws which are based upon a pet opinion belief system of the particular dictator or his/her political movement.

we are not living in a dictatorship so this is just irrelevant. ( I can't believe I had to post that)

irishpancake

marienbad wrote: »

we are not living in a dictatorship so this is just irrelevant. ( I can't believe I had to post that)

What are you on about Marien??

My little post was supportive of your POV......I know we don't live in a dictatorship.

You said:

Originally Posted by marienbad
Not really, very few if any laws are based on individual opinion . They are based on public opinion, precedent,historical experience and a whole host of other factors .

I simply provided an instance, not referring to Ireland at all, but generally, as to how laws could be imposed in a Dictatorship, without reference to any public opinion, or anything else, save the opinion and belief system of the Dictator or his small ruling elite.

Surely you will not disagree that this is indeed the case, and we have seen it, in Europe, and Asia, and elsewhere, in the past 70 years, the normal span of one life??

Of course I am not talking about Ireland, but this did happen, and there was a war to ensure that dictatorial rule would not prevail in Europe, and elsewhere.

I hope you can see where I am being supportive of your general POV?

Except of course, in dictatorships, and then usually only those laws which are based upon a pet opinion belief system of the particular dictator or his/her political movement.

marienbad

irishpancake wrote: »

What are you on about Marien??

My little post was supportive of your POV......I know we don't live in a dictatorship.

You said:




I simply provided an instance, not referring to Ireland at all, but generally, as to how laws could be imposed in a Dictatorship, without reference to any public opinion, or anything else, save the opinion and belief system of the Dictator or his small ruling elite.

Surely you will not disagree that this is indeed the case, and we have seen it, in Europe, and Asia, and elsewhere, in the past 70 years, the normal span of one life??

Of course I am not talking about Ireland, but this did happen, and there was a war to ensure that dictatorial rule would not prevail in Europe, and elsewhere.

I hope you can see where I am being supportive of your general POV?

What relevance has it to the discussion in hand ?

conorh91

irishpancake wrote: »

What certain rights, in the circumstances of a fetus which is a victim, presumably a dead fetus, in plain language?

Is it that this victim fetus may in fact be alive, and having the "potential" of surviving to viability?

So, the "fetal victim-hood" in these circumstances, would need further explanation and exploration.

If a foetus can be a "victim", then the foetus must have had some a priori rights that have been violated.

You cannot be a victim if none of your rights were violated in the first place.

An eaten apple, or a cooked chicken, or a scrambled egg can never be victims, because they never had any right not to be eaten, cooked, or scrambled in that manner.

If a dead foetus can ever be a victim by virtue of the manner of his dying (e.g. a bomb explosion), then that foetus-victim must have had some right to life to begin with.

irishpancake

marienbad wrote: »

What relevance has it to the discussion in hand ?

I hate doing this........

but please tell me how your statement, which I quoted, (again below,) and replied to, I thought in totaltally in the spirit of what Boards is about, tell me and all other participants here, how your statement was explicitly or specifically referring to the discussion in hand, even in the context of the interchange of ideas between Llc and volchitsa you inserted your post into??

"Not really, very few if any laws are based on individual opinion . They are based on public opinion, precedent,historical experience and a whole host of other factors ."

Where is that specific as to what and where you are referring to?

I replied to that in a helpful and courteous manner, IMO.

What is your beef??

Do you normally engage in backseat moderation here??

AFICS, you are not a Mod or Administrator here.

So, keep your commentary regarding my right to reply to such an innocuous post as yours on a public discussion board to yourself, or report me to the real Moderation team.

Leave such decisions and opinions to the Moderators and Administrators, who will quickly let me and you know what is or isn't relevant.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

If a foetus can be a "victim", then the foetus must have had some a priori rights that have been violated.

You cannot be a victim if none of your rights were violated in the first place.

An eaten apple, or a cooked chicken, or a scrambled egg can never be victims, because they never had any right not to be eaten, cooked, or scrambled in that manner.

If a dead foetus can ever be a victim by virtue of the manner of his dying (e.g. a bomb explosion), then that foetus-victim must have had some right to life to begin with.

All you are saying is that the fetus is alive, since it can be killed. But so can any living thing, and you can find newspaper articles about pets being the victims of things or whatever.
no-none is saying that anyone has the right to go around killing random fetuses. The issue is what right one person has, the woman inside whose body the fetus is, to control her own body, potentially at the expense of the embryo or fetus inside.

Your weird and implausible attempt at creative writing doesn't help that case at all. And as I said, is offensive to families who have lost unborn babies due to violence by other people, and who have never ever, so far as I know, ever reacted by wanting to kill a different fetus!

If you had a real life example, you'd have given it by now, so clearly you don't. And even if it ever did happen, it would be a clear case of mental illness due to PTSD, not a genuinely unwanted pregnancy.

conorh91

volchitsa wrote: »

All you are saying is that the fetus is alive, since it can be killed.

No i am not. You're jumping the gun and arguing a point that was never made.

I am asking irishpancake whether, in his or her opinion, foetuses can be victims.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

No i am not. You're jumping the gun and arguing a point that was never made.

I am asking irishpancake whether, in his or her opinion, foetuses can be victims.

But cats can be victims. Birds can even be victims (though usually of cats).
So what?

The thread is about a woman who requested a termination at 8 weeks, and we know the HSE was aware that she was suicidal at 16 weeks, if not sooner. So unless you are making a point that she should not have been allowed a termination, at any time, what you or I or Irish pancake, think about the rights of fetuses in general is not terribly relevant, out of context.

Maybe you should post it on the general abortion thread, but on this one it is highly offensive.

conorh91

volchitsa wrote: »

but on this one it is highly offensive.

Do me a favor and put me on ignore. All you keep telling me is how offensive I am being, when I am simply trying to make logical points.

I don't mind someone telling me my points are not logical, since that's a point of legitimate debate, but this constant complaining that I am offending you is doing my head in, frankly.

Lets be adults and ignore one another.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

Do me a favor and put me on ignore. All you keep telling me is how offensive I am being, when I am simply trying to make logical points.

I don't mind someone telling me my points are not logical, since that's a point of legitimate debate, but this constant complaining that I am offending you is doing my head in, frankly.

A point can be both illogical and offensive, and become more offensive by the repetition despite having the illogicality of it pointed out to you. That's what has happened here.
I actually explained over and over why that particular point isn't logical, as did others. You don't seem able to take that in, and keep repeating yourself.

Obviously pretending that I have only objected to it on the grounds of offensiveness suits you well, since you apparently can't actually argue the point. So no, put me on ignore if you like, but I can post to whoever I wish. Including you, and including to object to posts if I want.

geret

If someone is suicidal because of being in debt (for example) should the state step in and pay them to prevent the person from harming themselves?

conorh91

geret wrote: »

If someone is suicidal because of being in debt (for example) should the state step in and pay them to prevent the person from harming themselves?

If someone's debt is driving them to suicidal ideation, then they should be counselled or treated medically. That is the default position with pregnancy, too.

If medical treatment or counseling is not sufficient to avert a real and substantial risk to the person's life, then it is within the capacity of a family member of the suicidal debtor to arrange to have his or her debts settled. It might even be within the capacity of the suicidal person to seek and achieve an appropriate arrangement.

It's worth bearing in mind that the State has stepped in to restrict the steps that the Creditor may take in pursuit of a debt, so as to minimize the mental burden placed on the Debtor. It might thus be argued that a suicidal ideation in such circumstances is wholly irrational.

Unfortunately, you cannot 'negotiate-away' a pregnancy. It cannot be settled, except by way of a medical procedure, and although suicide is still not an appropriate solution; it is more difficult, if not impossible, to mitigate against.

Roastlamb

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I think this is an outrageous statement to make.

The unborn fetus is indeed the property of the mother, in fact, at the early stages it is more of an appendix than a separate being.

The unborn fetus is a part of the mother until such time as it is viable.

If you start declaring that the fetus is not a woman's property (what an awful phrase anyway), it's opening the door to all sorts of claims such as : "I am the father, she smokes and she drinks, I want the fetus taken out an put in an incubator", or "we are the State, we think this woman is not fit to have this baby, we will take the fetus and place it in an incubator".
Or even the opposite to what anti-abortion people are asking : "We are the State, we think this woman is not fit to be a mother, it's our responsibility to abort it".

The fetus belongs to the woman, it is a part of the woman, that progressively, over a number of weeks, becomes more independent, until finally it reaches viability outside the womb.

Statements like the one you gave there just frighten me for the future, it's like the premise of a dystopia where women's reproductive function would be utilized and regimented by Big Brother. Brrrr...

No human is the property of any other human.

volchitsa

geret wrote: »

If someone is suicidal because of being in debt (for example) should the state step in and pay them to prevent the person from harming themselves?

They don't even have to prove they are suicidal, they can declare bankruptcy for far less than that. (I think in the south you depend on England to do the actual dirty work for you there too though).

Roastlamb

Morals.are subjective, people are entitled to believe it is immoral to terminate a pregnancy.

marienbad

irishpancake wrote: »

I hate doing this........

but please tell me how your statement, which I quoted, (again below,) and replied to, I thought in totaltally in the spirit of what Boards is about, tell me and all other participants here, how your statement was explicitly or specifically referring to the discussion in hand, even in the context of the interchange of ideas between Llc and volchitsa you inserted your post into??

"Not really, very few if any laws are based on individual opinion . They are based on public opinion, precedent,historical experience and a whole host of other factors ."

Where is that specific as to what and where you are referring to?

I replied to that in a helpful and courteous manner, IMO.

What is your beef??

Do you normally engage in backseat moderation here??

AFICS, you are not a Mod or Administrator here.

So, keep your commentary regarding my right to reply to such an innocuous post as yours on a public discussion board to yourself, or report me to the real Moderation team.

Leave such decisions and opinions to the Moderators and Administrators, who will quickly let me and you know what is or isn't relevant.

Apologies , I think I mixed my posters up . I don't think I was discourteous though .

volchitsa

Roastlamb wrote: »

Morals.are subjective, people are entitled to believe it is immoral to terminate a pregnancy.

Of course they are. What they aren't entitled to do is to enforce their morality on people who don't accept it without good reason. When your morality involves removing any of a woman's human rights, that reason needs to be more than just being for the greater good in some way.

If one could even argue that it was for the greater good to force a raped woman to make a rapist a father. I doubt it, myself.

Mountainsandh

Roastlamb wrote: »

No human is the property of any other human.

A foetus is not yet a human.
Not up to viability anyway.

Roastlamb

Mountainsandh wrote: »

A foetus is not yet a human.
Not up to viability anyway.

No foetus inside a human is the property of a human.

Roastlamb

volchitsa wrote: »

Of course they are. What they aren't entitled to do is to enforce their morality on people who don't accept it without good reason. When your morality involves removing any of a woman's human rights, that reason needs to be more than just being for the greater good in some way.

If one could even argue that it was for the greater good to force a raped woman to make a rapist a father. I doubt it, myself.

The "greater good" is very much subjective, it could easily be argued that it is for the "greater good" that abortion is illegal.

Not everyone is so keen to objectify a foetus.

conorh91

Roastlamb wrote: »

No foetus inside a human is the property of a human.

Yeah but that's not necessarily the issue.

The claim is not so much that a foetus is the property of X, so much that X has dominion over her own body.

I know it's more complex than that, I just think the "property" route is a red herring.

PopePalpatine

And tell me, how many women must die during pregnancy - pregnancies that could have been easily aborted if it's not for this hypothetical total illegality of abortion - for you to change your mind about this proposed total ban on abortion being the "greater good"?

volchitsa

Roastlamb wrote: »

The "greater good" is very much subjective, it could easily be argued that it is for the "greater good" that abortion is illegal.

Umm yes. I was saying that arguing that something is for the greater good can't be used as a reason to remove the woman's rights, even if it were true that it was for the greater good.

Society's perceived greater good doesn't take priority over the individual's personal freedom. Otherwise we could marry people off to whoever society felt needed a partner, take blood from people as often as blood banks needed it etc.

Piliger

geret wrote: »

If someone is suicidal because of being in debt (for example) should the state step in and pay them to prevent the person from harming themselves?

The State does offer bankruptcy options for people in these situations.

Piliger

volchitsa wrote: »

Umm yes. I was saying that arguing that something is for the greater good can't be used as a reason to remove the woman's rights, even if it were true that it was for the greater good.

Society's perceived greater good doesn't take priority over the individual's personal freedom. Otherwise we could marry people off to whoever society felt needed a partner, take blood from people as often as blood banks needed it etc.

I would suggest that the greater good is a red herring best avoided. The issue is bigger than that, it is about human rights. Basic human rights of a person over their body.