Abortion

Liesannenl

Hi there!

I'm Liesanne and I'm from the Netherlands. I'd like to ask you a few questions about Abortion. Like I already said I'm from the Netherlands, where abortion is generally accepted. But when I'm reading the news about Ireland and abortion it's rather the opposite. So the reason why I opened this thread, is because I wonder where this comes from. Why is abortion still illegal in most of the cases? I wonder what you think of abortion and what do you think should be the law in Ireland of abortion?

Sincerely,

Liesanne

Black Swan

Abortion is a personal, medical, psychological, sociological, political, philosophical, and theologically charged issue in Ireland, as it is in many countries. Given that it crosses several disciplines, it's a good topic for discussion in Humanities.

bpmurray

Liesannenl wrote: »

Why is abortion still illegal in most of the cases?

Actually it's illegal in all cases.

When women want abortions in Ireland, a few thousand every year, they travel abroad, usually to the UK but sometimes to the Netherlands.

Liesannenl

bpmurray wrote: »

Actually it's illegal in all cases.

When women want abortions in Ireland, a few thousand every year, they travel abroad, usually to the UK but sometimes to the Netherlands.

On the internet I read it is legal if it occurs as the result of a medical intervention performed to save the life of the mother.

Black Swan

bpmurray wrote: »

Actually it's illegal in all cases.

When women want abortions in Ireland, a few thousand every year, they travel abroad, usually to the UK but sometimes to the Netherlands.

There is an apparent conflict between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK in regards to abortion law.

Torakx

The reason is that the Catholic church had quite a bit of power over the minds of the people of Ireland.
This had a strong effect on our culture and general principles.
Lately the church has lost a lot of power.
In Irish society generally the religious catholocs are few and few with each generation. Most I know don't go to church or think about god, but the rules ae still more or less there with the older generations.
Also I am pretty sure the majority of voters are the older generation, who still watch television. This means they are still being indoctrinated by RTE and cohorts.
I'm not sure if the state broadcaster is in cahoots with the church as well as the other criminals it serves.
I don't have a tv and avoid propaganda as much as possible.
But maybe someone else here can confirm that RTE shows a certain bias in favour of the churchs ideology.

The current referendum on abortion is being used to hide the water charges and TTIP european agreement which will be a major move forward in making the average european more impoverished and tied to the state as a legal entity under the european business jurisdiction(maritime law).
So while everyone is thinking about morals and ethics, these criminals will be stealing our futures out from under us.

Abortion is a serious topic though. It's just the rulling class don't give a damn. It's a convenient distraction in their eyes.
I think it will get a no vote in Ireland. But I could see that changing when the older generations who only know tv pass away, what will be left hopefully will more informed voters.
At least until Internet 2.0 lol
Then we are all back at square one, with propoganda and media bias.

Ps, I'm sorry if I got my referendums mixed up, there might be a gay marriage one coming up soon and I am not sure which is going to happen first. Again I don't watch tv or read newspapers, so not really sure.
But on average these types of referendums which don't amount to profit for the government and its criminals(sorry they are a terrible terrible, corrupt establishment) are usually held off for a time when they need a distraction.
While there is a referendum on, they usually slip in new laws on unrelated matters or related, that will impoverish the nation down the line, while they are serious debating some other moral or ethical topic. Very easy to do and then get your retirement/pension as an MP when it's too late to do anything about it.
Ireland has a long line of criminals retired from politics still drawing massive pensions.
This also effects the likes of abortion laws, because these people could make a massive difference, but they are too busy scamming for retirement.

The Corinthian

Liesannenl wrote: »

Why is abortion still illegal in most of the cases?

Because culturally Ireland is very different to countries like the Netherlands, most notably in that Ireland is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, although Ireland's isolated agrarian and parochial history probably plays a large part too. As a result Ireland will differ from the Netherlands on numerous social issues, such as abortion, prostitution or even marriage (the Irish divorce rate is c. 16% as opposed to the Dutch rate of almost three times that at 43%).

I wonder what you think of abortion and what do you think should be the law in Ireland of abortion?

What answer do you want? A philosophical one? An opinion of greater Irish opinion?

If the latter, my guess is that culturally the Irish are still uncomfortable with the idea of abortion in general. As a result you'll tend to find that even many pro-choice views will still be quite tentative and restrictive when compared to views that you'd find in the Netherlands. I also suspect that while public opinion has changed over the last few decades to the point that legalization of abortion will likely be possible within the next few years, due to the residual 'squeamishness' of the Irish on the subject it will likely be far more restrictive that in the Netherlands and require some form of moral justification, beyond a woman's right to choose, to legitimize it in Irish eyes.

Either way, asking here is probably not too useful as the demographics of this site don't mirror Irish demographics in general.

Liesannenl

Torakx wrote: »

Also I am pretty sure the majority of voters are the older generation, who still watch television. This means they are still being indoctrinated by RTE and cohorts.

The current referendum on abortion is being used to hide the water charges and TTIP european agreement which will be a major move forward in making the average european more impoverished and tied to the state as a legal entity under the european business jurisdiction(maritime law).
So while everyone is thinking about morals and ethics, these criminals will be stealing our futures out from under us.

Abortion is a serious topic though. It's just the rulling class don't give a damn. It's a convenient distraction in their eyes.
I think it will get a no vote in Ireland. But I could see that changing when the older generations who only know tv pass away, what will be left hopefully will more informed voters.
At least until Internet 2.0 lol
Then we are all back at square one, with propoganda and media bias.

Ps, I'm sorry if I got my referendums mixed up, there might be a gay marriage one coming up soon and I am not sure which is going to happen first. Again I don't watch tv or read newspapers, so not really sure.
But on average these types of referendums which don't amount to profit for the government and its criminals(sorry they are a terrible terrible, corrupt establishment) are usually held off for a time when they need a distraction.
While there is a referendum on, they usually slip in new laws on unrelated matters or related, that will impoverish the nation down the line, while they are serious debating some other moral or ethical topic. Very easy to do and then get your retirement/pension as an MP when it's too late to do anything about it.
Ireland has a long line of criminals retired from politics still drawing massive pensions.
This also effects the likes of abortion laws, because these people could make a massive difference, but they are too busy scamming for retirement.

I have a few questions. What do you mean with the older generation who still watch tv? I'd say the newer generation would watch more tv than the older generation. Also I don't quite understand what you mean with 'to hide the water charges' .

Torakx

Liesannenl wrote: »

I have a few questions. What do you mean with the older generation who still watch tv? I'd say the newer generation would watch more tv than the older generation. Also I don't quite understand what you mean with 'to hide the water charges' .

Being very general, they new generations are more connected online.
Information online at the moment has a lot more freedom to move around.
Television is programming. You don't choose your source. The older generations grew up with only tv, it is naturally and again in general the most common form of information gathering, that and newspapers and radio, all of which are unreliable.

Regarding the water charges. If there is an abortion referendum in Ireland, the timing will be in line with some legislation that would normally be rejected.
The marriage referendum I think is currently happening, and it is probably this that is used to distract from the current water charges issue as legislation or some other clock is ticking out(a ministers position change for example or a party election).

The Corinthian

Liesannenl wrote: »

I'd say the newer generation would watch more tv than the older generation.

From what I gather, the newer generations are actually less likely to watch television and more likely to use the Internet to get their information and entertainment. Viewership figures for TV have been in free-fall for a few years now.

Bezuhov

If Torakx watched TV, he/she would be aware that RTE, in common with the media generally, campaigns strongly and relentlessly for abortion. Pro-life views are accorded only token representation, e.g. discussion panels are almost invariably loaded 3 to1 or 4 to 1 in favour of abortion.

In my opinion, discussion of this issue is rarely focused on the central issue, i.e., when does life begin, and consequently attain human rights ?
If common ground could be found in answering this question, then all other connected issues could be discussed more productively in the light of that answer. As it is, discussions of abortion usually involve people talking at cross purposes, each doggedly pursuing their own side- issue in a dialogue of the deaf.

It is often suggested that independent viability be used as a cut-off point for abortion, but this view is clearly rooted in convenience, not science, and does not seriously address the question.

Perhaps Liesannenl could provide us with a Dutch perspective on the question of when life begins, when human rights begin.

Liesannenl

So when I get to my conclusion, it seems like you're all not really against abortion? It seems that it's just the law that makes abortion illegal + the older generation. Or isn't that the right conclusion?

Dhduxbeusns

We don't have abortion in ireland yet. The younger generation wants it because they don't value human lives (they have unprotected sex frequently). The older generation are anti abortion. The politicians are anti abortion too.

From a medical point of view a fertilised egg in a woman is a living thing. As humans we shouldn't kill living things, especially if that living thing will become a human baby in mere months.

Bezuhov

Liesannenl wrote: »

So when I get to my conclusion, it seems like you're all not really against abortion? It seems that it's just the law that makes abortion illegal + the older generation. Or isn't that the right conclusion?

I am firmly opposed to abortion on the basis that it is impossible to pinpoint a time between conception and birth where life begins. Therefore a unique, unrepeatable human individual is present from fertilisation onward.

Would still like to hear from you, Liesanne, regarding the crucial question of when life begins.

oldozer

Bezuhov wrote: »

I am firmly opposed to abortion on the basis that it is impossible to pinpoint a time between conception and birth where life begins. Therefore a unique, unrepeatable human individual is present from fertilisation onward.

Would still like to hear from you, Liesanne, regarding the crucial question of when life begins.

I too am of the opinion of abortion being wrong. But then on my reading of Scripture related matters contraception is a form of abortion. Scripture of course would have us believe of contraception being a means of "Spilling of the seed". A whole other question of course which would have me think of maybe sex not being something which is not to be regarded as a subject of pleasure only.

Thinking of the old Essene thing here of which Joseph being The Virgin Father. Not a job given lightly to any old dude if we believe in some form of creator. Birth had already been created in That Family in some belief, so yet a whole other story. A Divine Creation, a Virgin birth of which has been with us as some belief of 2000 years.

Abortion as a subject has touched this writer though a decision was not within my remit of the time. Given time over though I think I would not have been one to think too long on that being a good idea as for my part I would have said no to that choice. Foolish or otherwise I think it not something taken lightly. I would not dare to judge those who would find themselves in that situation, but I would try to support those who take that choice.

The writer being old enough to remember some who spoke on this subject of times past, "blessings" given with new life, a thought comes to mind. Old folk of my past would have me believe of conception. Those old folk would tell of this new life given a secret name by their Guardian Angel. The index finger placed on the upper lip of a new gift to mankind would have This Guardian placed said index finger on the upper lip with a "shush" as this secret name was known only to The Creator and Their Guardian.

New reading of my own would have me believe of the heart being the first organ at conception. Perhaps the soul, and all knowledge is contained in this heart. Heart frequency, Aural Field, call it what you will, but this the aborted could also contain some new field of advancement to humankind. Statistics of course would have us believe of humanity knowing more than creation.

A small amount of study on my part lead me to some well known University in America whereby the majority have now come to believe in abortion being acceptable to Five years of age. The reasons cited, well they have not become real persons. An abortionist who was reprimanded for his method of abortion. Abortion was not the issue in his discipline, he just happened to be taking home trophies. He of course was only one of many which came to notice as some Nurses had problems with Ethics. One Nurse had a problem with the breaking of the neck as a means of dispatch of the aborted, but hygiene was a cause of that clinic being closed temporally.

Fertilization most definitely is the creation of being unique. Regardless of how this method is achieved in the normal sense. Unique, unrepeatable life in that unique way. Each life in Billions of present, past, yet to be. None, no Two the same. I think this could be called unique even if we don't quite fully understand it.

Dozer.

The Corinthian

Liesannenl wrote: »

So when I get to my conclusion, it seems like you're all not really against abortion? It seems that it's just the law that makes abortion illegal + the older generation. Or isn't that the right conclusion?

No. Suggesting that it's down to simple age demographics is a simplistic conclusion. Younger Irish people may be more positively predisposed to the legalization of abortion, but even there, there would be significantly less support for it than in countries such as the Netherlands.

There are various other factors involved; religion, history, culture - all have played a part in Ireland's views on social issues. And I specifically refer to them as social issues, because it is a trend that you'll see in Irish attitudes towards many other topics, such as marriage, divorce, prostitution and so on. You can't ignore those as they are related.

Ireland is a more socially conservative country. It lacks the same history and culture of liberalism or individualism that the Netherlands has. So inevitably it will comparatively appear less permissive.

Bezuhov

[Quote The Corinthian
Ireland is a more socially conservative country. It lacks the same history and culture of liberalism or individualism that the Netherlands has. So inevitably it will comparatively appear less permissive.[/quote]

I would question the use of the term liberalism in this context. To sanction the destruction of unborn life and dress this up as compassion seems to me profoundly illiberal. A more accurate term would be pseudo- liberal.

Torakx

It is really an ethical question isn't it?
Which I think cannot have a right or wrong. That would be subjective.

For me, I would tend to defer to the person involved to decide.
Even if it was my own child, I couldn,t knowingly force someone to have a baby, at the same time, I would accept responsibility for my actions or inactions.

I can't even seriously argue that killing someone is wrong.
I would end up disecting what it is to be wrong and the pros and cons of the conflicts involved for humanity and our evolution(of our conscious minds mostly).

But looking at a cultural level on the whole, you can see that ireland is slowly moving towards pro abortion.
I think this has been helped a great deal by western mass media, entertainment and propaganda.

The Corinthian

Bezuhov wrote: »

I would question the use of the term liberalism in this context. To sanction the destruction of unborn life and dress this up as compassion seems to me profoundly illiberal. A more accurate term would be pseudo- liberal.

I think you need to read up on what liberalism actually means as you appear to be under the delusion that it is somehow connected to some concept of compassion. It's not.

Bezuhov

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you need to read up on what liberalism actually means as you appear to be under the delusion that it is somehow connected to some concept of compassion. It's not.

Perhaps I over complicated matters by referring to two distinct concepts in the same sentence !
My reference to compassion decries the tendency of promoters of abortion to appeal to the emotions by characterising abortion as a compassionate response to crisis pregnancy.
I would have thought it obvious that my reference to illiberalism refers to the taking of human life, since true liberalism cherishes personal freedom, and surely primacy must be given to the most basic freedom - to live.

The Corinthian

Bezuhov wrote: »

I would have thought it obvious that my reference to illiberalism refers to the taking of human life, since true liberalism cherishes personal freedom, and surely primacy must be given to the most basic freedom - to live.

I'm afraid liberalism does no such thing. Some schools, typically in social liberalism, may but it would be incorrect to suggest that liberalism, as a whole, gives any primacy to the 'freedom' (it's a right, btw, not a freedom) to live. For example, social Darwinism is a liberal school of thought and it hardly gives any such primacy.

So no, I'm sorry, you are incorrect in your understanding of liberalism. It is not actually illiberal to condone or sanction the termination of life.

Bezuhov

The Corinthian wrote: »

Some schools, typically in social liberalism, may but it would be incorrect to suggest that liberalism, as a whole, gives any primacy to the 'freedom' (it's a right, btw, not a freedom) to live.

Who decides what constitutes liberalism as a whole ?
The Oxford Dictionary defines liberal as "favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms"
(btw, of what value is a right without the freedom to exercise it ? )

We could play, as Jack Charlton might say, "silly buggers" semantically until the cows come home, but frankly, it's not a game that interests me. I would much prefer to stick with the original discussion raised in this thread.
To that end, l am disappointed, though not surprised that nobody seems inclined to engage with the question of when life begins.

The Corinthian

Bezuhov wrote: »

Who decides what constitutes liberalism as a whole ?
The Oxford Dictionary defines liberal as "favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms"
(btw, of what value is a right without the freedom to exercise it ? )

You might want to use an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary when you do your research. You do know, BTW, that your definition does not contradict anything I said and neither does it support what you said - you presumed that life is of primary importance in liberalism, because you believe it should be, not because of anything factual.

We could play, as Jack Charlton might say, "silly buggers" semantically until the cows come home, but frankly, it's not a game that interests me. I would much prefer to stick with the original discussion raised in this thread.

Don't confuse semantics with correcting someone when they come out with something that is plainly and factually incorrect. You said something wrong, I corrected it - if you like I can also link to some Wikipedia articles on the subject.

To that end, l am disappointed, though not surprised that nobody seems inclined to engage with the question of when life begins.

So you can base all your arguments on nine-word dictionary definitions and accuse people of semantics when they point out that you don't appear to know what you're discussing? I'm afraid it might be you who's not engaging.

oldozer

"To that end, l am disappointed, though not surprised that nobody seems inclined to engage with the question of when life begins".

Good point, but I would be inclined to think conception is life.

You have two choices before, and two choices after the act of conception.

Just like the OP who had a choice on asking the question.

What is the view of the op ?

Dozer.

Lakefrio

Liesannenl wrote: »

Hi there!

I'm Liesanne and I'm from the Netherlands. I'd like to ask you a few questions about Abortion. Like I already said I'm from the Netherlands, where abortion is generally accepted. But when I'm reading the news about Ireland and abortion it's rather the opposite. So the reason why I opened this thread, is because I wonder where this comes from. Why is abortion still illegal in most of the cases? I wonder what you think of abortion and what do you think should be the law in Ireland of abortion?

Sincerely,

Liesanne

It is regarded as immoral to kill a fetus by some people.

Torakx

Bezuhov wrote: »

Who decides what constitutes liberalism as a whole ?
The Oxford Dictionary defines liberal as "favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms"
(btw, of what value is a right without the freedom to exercise it ? )

We could play, as Jack Charlton might say, "silly buggers" semantically until the cows come home, but frankly, it's not a game that interests me. I would much prefer to stick with the original discussion raised in this thread.
To that end, l am disappointed, though not surprised that nobody seems inclined to engage with the question of when life begins.

It could be argued that an unborn fetus is not yet an individual. As far as I know children become self aware around the age of 2-3.

The Corinthian

Torakx wrote: »

It could be argued that an unborn fetus is not yet an individual. As far as I know children become self aware around the age of 2-3.

That's a good argument for infanticide.

Sapience, what you've described, is sometimes cited as a criteria of person-hood, but not very often because it's not actually reached by humans until long after birth and thus flawed (unless you want to have infanticide).

Sentience, the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively, is another criteria often used. Problem is, other than the fact that almost all animals posses this, is that it can be lost too - comatose patients are not sentient, does that mean they're not people? Apparently they are because a caveat is then added to the definition of person-hood to say once you qualify as a person, you can't lose it.

Which is pretty questionable, TBH. Somehow the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively makes you a person (why is never really explained), but it's not really that important because you can still be a person if you lose that ability. Make sense? Not really.

It's also not helped by the fact that most people, on both sides of the debate, don't seem to know what sentience or sapience are.

My views on the subject have changed over the decades, but ultimately the only reasonable definition of a 'person' I've arrived at is a homo sapien organism; homo sapien because the definition is presently limited to our species and organism because only an organism will grow, metabolize and eventually reproduce given the right environment. A fingernail will not. Sperm will not.

Of course, just because it's a person, that doesn't mean it has a right to life. There's no such thing as an absolute right to life and as a society we have numerous examples of where one loses that right, or has that right overruled by someone else's right to something else. The myth of an absolute right to life is just a fairy tale bandied about by people who like to cite terms like liberalism without having a clue what they're talking about.

But the absolute right to life debate is another can of worms.

The whole 'when is a fetus a person' argument is a bit of a red herring, largely because the whole issue is highly emotive and your average joe or jane will decide on the basis of believing that the fetus is either a ball of cells or an adorable little baby.

The entire debate, on both sides, is framed so as to appeal to people's emotions, not their reason.

K4t

Liesannenl wrote: »

I wonder where this comes from. Why is abortion still illegal in most of the cases?

Devout Catholicism up until very recently, though a lot of people in positions of power in this country still subscribe to many core beliefs. And those who do not still carry much of the mentality of the religion.

I wonder what you think of abortion and what do you think should be the law in Ireland of abortion?

If every woman in the world decided they were not going to have kids or become pregnant, it would not be right for men to force themselves on a woman to continue humanity. It would be for men to change women's' minds. Not to tell them what to do. And if men would not change their minds, then extinction would be right.

A man or a woman deciding another woman cannot have an abortion, no matter at what stage, is to force themselves on that woman. It is not right.

It's a shame that it will probably take another 50 years for me to be proven right, but again religion specialises in stalling progress.

The Corinthian

K4t wrote: »

If every woman in the world decided they were not going to have kids or become pregnant, it would not be right for men to force themselves on a woman to continue humanity. It would be for men to change women's' minds. Not to tell them what to do. And if men would not change their minds, then extinction would be right.

Pretty extreme level of individualism there. What limits, if any, do you place on the individual being able to overrule the greater good, out of interest?

K4t

The Corinthian wrote: »

Pretty extreme level of individualism there. What limits, if any, do you place on the individual being able to overrule the greater good, out of interest?

Levels of extremity depend on your perspective. It's quite funny and ever so sad that you think the greater good has something to do with a woman's right to have control and choice over her own body.

The Corinthian

K4t wrote: »

Levels of extremity depend on your perspective. It's quite funny and ever so sad that you think the greater good has something to do with a woman's right to have control and choice over her own body.

Well, I would have considered the species the greater good as it includes both genders. And an extinction scenario would be considered pretty extreme I'd imagine.

Or are you saying that the right of the individual being able to overrule the greater good should be limited to women or what exactly?

K4t

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, I would have considered the species the greater good as it includes both genders. And an extinction scenario would be considered pretty extreme I'd imagine.

The species is the greater good, but not at the expense of allowing evil to prevail (refer back to my original analogy of forcing oneself on a woman). Extinction will never happen, or else it will happen just the once, but it will not be because abortion laws and limits became too lax!

The Corinthian

K4t wrote: »

The species is the greater good, but not at the expense of allowing evil to prevail (refer back to my original analogy of forcing oneself on a woman).

If something allows evil to prevail, it cannot by definition be the greater good.

Extinction will never happen, or else it will happen just the once, but it will not be because abortion laws and limits became too lax!

Now you're backtracking as your example specifically cited extinction.

So is overriding an individual's right then superior to the right of the majority to survive - seeing as this is 'evil' in your eyes? If so what limits to individual rights would you see as justifying the right of the majority to survive?

Any individual right or is there some level at which the right of the individual is lesser to the right of the majority? If so, where?

K4t

You've completely confused my original point. Your argument that limits and laws on abortion are needed to continue the species and the greater good is as far fetched as the possibility that extinction would occur if a woman had absolute control over her body concerning choice about abortion. The only difference is your argument promotes and relies on forcing your own belief and practice on a woman. Mine does not.

The Corinthian

K4t wrote: »

You've completely confused my original point. Your argument that limits and laws on abortion are needed to continue the species and the greater good is as far fetched as the possibility that extinction would occur if a woman had absolute control over her body concerning choice about abortion. The only difference is your argument promotes and relies on forcing your own belief and practice on a woman. Mine does not.

No, you clearly stated that individual rights trump the greater good of society in a specific scenario. I asked on what basis you you see this being true - why is the right of the individual more important than that of the greater good (which is evil according to you)? What's stopping me from arguing that my personal rights to my earnings trump those of the greater good so I need not pay any taxes? When is it right to 'force' people to do something against their will and when is it not?

You've stated a very overarching and, most people would likely think, extreme moral position? So either you can explain it rationally, or your position starts looking like ill-though-out nonsense.

So why don't you define where the right of the individual supersedes the right of society as a whole?

K4t

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, you clearly stated that individual rights trump the greater good of society in a specific scenario. I asked on what basis you you see this being true - why is the right of the individual more important than that of the greater good (which is evil according to you)? What's stopping me from arguing that my personal rights to my earnings trump those of the greater good so I need not pay any taxes? When is it right to 'force' people to do something against their will and when is it not?

You've stated a very overarching and, most people would likely think, extreme moral position? So either you can explain it rationally, or your position starts looking like ill-though-out nonsense.

So why don't you define where the right of the individual supersedes the right of society as a whole?

I did it explain it rationally in my original post which I urge those reading to refer to, before you attempted to complicate something which is not, or at least should not be, complicated. And my view is shared by many thankfully. Also, comparing your right to earnings to a woman's right to control her own body is irrational in the extreme by the way. It is amazing the lengths people will go to try and apply reason to denying a woman's right to choose to have control over her own body. I hope we can revisit this page in 50 years time to see if my opinion is extreme as you say, or simply ahead of its time. I have faith in humanity, and I think I'll be proven right.

The Corinthian

K4t wrote: »

I did it explain it rationally in my original post which I urge those reading to refer to, before you attempted to complicate something which is not, or at least should not be, complicated.

I'm afraid it's not as simple as you'd like though. So there are no limits, no criteria to individual rights then? If so, my example regarding tax is equally valid. Is it or do you want to admit to being overly simplistic?

And my view is shared by many thankfully.

Yes, your extinction of the human race example has lots of support, no doubt... because you say so.

Seriously, if you can't even properly explain your thought process, how can you expect it to be taken seriously?

K4t

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm afraid it's not as simple as you'd like though. So there are no limits, no criteria to individual rights then? If so, my example regarding tax is equally valid. Is it or do you want to admit to being overly simplistic?

It's funny how you cannot even fathom how a woman would have absolute control over her own body. And you accuse me of being irrational. Sigh.

Yes, your extinction of the human race example has lots of support, no doubt... because you say so.

But the analogy wasn't about the extinction of the human race, it was to show that once we force ourselves on women, we have nothing, we are nowhere; that's why we do have laws against rape for example. Forcing a woman to surrender control of her body to the state is a shocking indictment on us as a society. I'm not sure there is any where else to go with this discussion, so I think it's best we allow time decide who is right and who is wrong. I do think I am right, but only because I know that forcing a woman to surrender control of her body is never right, whether it's to conceive a child or to engage in sexual intercourse.

The Corinthian

K4t wrote: »

It's funny how you cannot even fathom how a woman would have absolute control over her own body. And you accuse me of being irrational. Sigh.

What I find funny is that you're repeatedly ducking out of explaining the basis of your moral logic.

So, based on what you have said, if it is to do with a woman having control of her body then it's OK to go against the greater good, otherwise it's not acceptable. That's all you've been willing to proffer and have refused to offer any other criteria.

If so, your view is both chauvinist and a misandrist. Setting a moral standard for one gender, but excluding the other. Only a woman can ever have that right, and there is no circumstance where a man could have an equal right over his body. You've offered nothing else in your simplistic little model.

Torakx

I would say individual rights outweight the greater good. But it is a matter of perspective.
For me, my life experience is the ONLY experience I will ever have.
The majority can take a long walk in many situations lol
I care about humanity as much as I care about animals, possibly a little more.
I think the person who has to grow a fetus inside them should have the choice, even if the world is ending and we are in danger of extinction.

People who see value in having a legacy after they die might think very differently.
In my view, I won't be there toenjoy a legacy so it seems a thought purely to satisfy me while I am alive, which means to me, I am better served being efficienct and economical with my energy, and just enjoy the ride(while deciding as much as possible what happens with my body along the way).

K4t

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, based on what you have said, if it is to do with a woman having control of her body then it's OK to go against the greater good, otherwise it's not acceptable. That's all you've been willing to proffer and have refused to offer any other criteria.

You introduced the concept of the greater good in an attempt to create an angle to strengthen your argument. The greater good, which in your opinion is the continuation of the species, can co-exist with a woman being allowed to have full control over her reproductive system, believe it or not.

If so, your view is both chauvinist and a misandrist. Setting a moral standard for one gender, but excluding the other. Only a woman can ever have that right, and there is no circumstance where a man could have an equal right over his body. You've offered nothing else in your simplistic little model.

I was wondering how long it would take you to throw that one at me! You truly will go to any lengths! Tell me please how I implied a circumstance where a man could not have an equal right over his body? I presume you do know a man can not give birth to a child. It's quite clear from your posts that you see this as some kind of a debate, and are determined to do anything to change the discussion to suit yourself. I've explained my view very clearly, it's not my problem your own views do not conform to mine. As I said, let's allow time to decide who is right and wrong. It's the only way we will know for sure.

K4t

Torakx wrote: »

I think the person who has to grow a fetus inside them should have the choice, even if the world is ending and we are in danger of extinction.

Exactly. Who is anyone else to decide otherwise? Who is any man or woman to physically force themselves or their view on a woman? And then you have people who somehow manage to compare a woman's individual right to have control over her own body, to their right to earnings and not to have to pay so many taxes! They can't even see the ridiculous nature of the comparison, such is their conditioning concerning abortion.

The Corinthian

K4t wrote: »

You introduced the concept of the greater good in an attempt to create an angle to strengthen your argument. The greater good, which in your opinion is the continuation of the species, can co-exist with a woman being allowed to have full control over her reproductive system, believe it or not.

Not according to the scenario you offered - you specifically gave two options, of which extinction was one. Why are you attempting to backtrack?

I was wondering how long it would take you to throw that one at me!

Well, I've been going through hoops giving you every opportunity to explain how your bizarre logic was not based on gender, and having failed to do so gender was the only criteria you appeared to use. Ergo, your position is ultimately sexist.

If this is not the case, please explain why not. I've given you, and continue to give you, ample opportunity to do so. It's you who have continued to indignantly refuse to engage as if you're offended by the fact that someone would not agree with you without question.

I've explained my view very clearly, it's not my problem your own views do not conform to mine.

You've not. It's one thing to argue a pro-choice stance, but you went way, way further and that is what I am questioning and you are refusing to respond.

Torakx wrote: »

I would say individual rights outweight the greater good. But it is a matter of perspective.
For me, my life experience is the ONLY experience I will ever have.

Do you think that such as stance is particularly healthy? After all, by your logic, my life experience is the ONLY experience I will ever have, so if I want to experience killing someone, I could kill you.

Note that this is no longer a question simply about abortion now, but a basic principle in morality. At what point is the right of the individual subservient to the greater good? If never, we can dispense with morality and just do what grabs our fancy.

K4t

The Corinthian wrote: »

as if you're offended by the fact that someone would not agree with you without question.

Not offended at all, in fact I think it's the opposite. I offered my view with a clear analogy and explained it further when asked. You simply disagree with it, or do not understand it, which is fine. But you have since then persisted in offering nothing but bizarre comparisons of a woman's right to control her body with the right to earnings, and how limits on abortion, and more specifically denying a woman's right to choose, are needed for the 'greater good'. The sexist argument is equally as baffling, considering you believe the world cannot exist without a woman's right to control her body being impinged in some way.

Note that this is no longer a question simply about abortion now, but a basic principle in morality. At what point is the right of the individual subservient to the greater good? If never, we can dispense with morality and just do what grabs our fancy.

I see you ignored the line that that poster quoted which is directly in relation to the discussion on abortion. You are the one making this discussion far more convoluted than it needs me, in fact you have to, if you are to give any credibility to your argument. Here is the line by the way, and it ties into my original point which you refuse to accept.

Torakx wrote:

I think the person who has to grow a fetus inside them should have the choice, even if the world is ending and we are in danger of extinction.

eviltwin

150,000 + Irish women have had abortions since the 80's. Hard to see what the greater good of forcing them to have had those babies would have been. The human population won't go extinct because of abortion.

oldozer

There is nothing new about abortion in Ireland. It has been with us all the time as it has been in the country of the OP. Even in the dawn of history we had it just as we had it in the time of my youth. Old priest or granny had a cure for that problem then as we have now. We have just now become aware of the need to make it acceptable as a matter of daily routine. Perhaps if our species as a society had put more effort into our moral/ethic standards we would not be now asking this question. We have always it seems lived in times of lack of leadership and understanding in this as we have in many subjects in daily life. We now live in times where we may ask questions. Questions which may be asked by individuals of modern so called leaders who most often lack the knowledge of people on such boards as this seek.

Modern Ireland it would appear now seems to need abortion to keep in step with the world. It has always tried to deny, shun, export, home remedy such things. Most likely as a result mainly of being good Christians, moral people of our past. Modern Ireland though seems to lack the thought of perhaps there being another way. Modern Ireland will not promote family values quite so easily in their media as it will promote abortion as a contraceptive. Modern Ireland as will the world promote the demeaning of life, and even the feckless killing of the unborn. We have as I have said here before. Even become to believe life after immediate birth is not yet life. This creation of life though man may think it his is not of his making. It is of a higher knowing not yet gained lest we pollute it as we have done with the few simple laws we were given to live by................Thou shalt not kill.

Dozer.

The Corinthian

K4t wrote: »

But you have since then persisted in offering nothing but bizarre comparisons of a woman's right to control her body with the right to earnings, and how limits on abortion, and more specifically denying a woman's right to choose, are needed for the 'greater good'.

The moment you decided to equate a personal right as more important as the collective right for the human race to survive, is when this discussion stopped being simply about abortion, whether you like it or not.

You upped the ante from abortion simply being a right to a woman's control of her body to one that would determine the survival of the species and to suggest that the morality of the two does not change given those parameters is ridiculous. Indeed, the moment you did this, the discussion stopped being about abortion and became one about individual versus collective rights.

That, and not a woman's right to choose, is what I have asked you to explain. Not whether an individual right has presence, but if it has always precedence even unto the point of extinction - something your introduced to the discussion, not I.

What I asked is what limits are there to individual rights then? If to the point that they supersede the right of humanity to survive, on what basis? Instead you've failed to address this and have instead gone to extremes to try to backtrack your introduction of extinction into the discussion. All that was left, was apparently a right for women, because you refused to give any other criteria - and that would be sexist.

If you'd not mentioned human extinction, there would be no argument, but you did. So either you explain your position on individual versus collective rights in the context you gave or I an only presume you don't have an answer.

I see you ignored the line that that poster quoted which is directly in relation to the discussion on abortion.

I didn't. I responded to them that they were putting forward the position that individual rights or desires will trump the collective good every time. Unfortunately that means that I can equally argue that I can kill someone or take their property if it satisfies my individual rights or desires too. Unless there are limits or criteria to this, which is what I have asked you to offer.

eviltwin wrote: »

150,000 + Irish women have had abortions since the 80's. Hard to see what the greater good of forcing them to have had those babies would have been. The human population won't go extinct because of abortion.

I was responding to the specific moral scenario which specifically saw humanity going extinct. Why is everyone pretending now that this was not actually brought up, and not by me?

K4t

The Corinthian wrote: »

At what point is the right of the individual subservient to the greater good? If never, we can dispense with morality and just do what grabs our fancy.

In a discussion about abortion and a woman's right to control her own body, your use of language here is very telling. Subservient? Defined as being prepared to obey others unquestioningly. Greater Good? Well we both agree that this is the continuation of the species, though you would seek to control women in order to do so, rather than allow it to happen naturally. Of course women hold the reproductive organs to bring life into the world, and that is the way it has been and probably always will be. But while you seem to think that the world will fall apart or become extinct if women are suddenly given full control over their body and reproductive organs, my argument would simply be that that wouldn't happen. Nature has made us so that will not happen and Eviltwin's post alludes to that. I used an analogy to originally explain this point; even if the world was about to become extinct, it would not be right to force the last remaining woman left on earth to engage in sexual intercourse, but rather convince her that it is for the greater good. That is my argument. Yours is one of control and force, and subservience.

K4t

The Corinthian wrote: »

The moment you decided to equate a personal right as more important as the collective right for the human race to survive, is when this discussion stopped being simply about abortion, whether you like it or not.

You simply cannot comprehend that a woman's right to control her own body is as much her right now, as it would be if she was the last woman left on earth tomorrow and there were ten guys surrounding her. Just as it would be wrong for any of those guys to force her to have sex against her will, or to force her to give birth to a child, it is wrong now. We have the laws preventing her from being raped, yet we also have laws which would force her to give birth to a child. It's wrong and it's illogical.

I didn't. I responded to them that they were putting forward the position that individual rights or desires will trump the collective good every time. Unfortunately that means that I can equally argue that I can kill someone or take their property if it satisfies my individual rights or desires too. Unless there are limits or criteria to this, which is what I have asked you to offer.

Yes, but you conveniently ignored the line which I mentioned, and which is on the money. You're comparing your right to kill someone (presumably not in self defence?) to a woman's right to control her own body. Ridiculous. A woman's individual right, and collective right, as it is the right of all women, to control their own body, exists now in the same way it would exist if we were on the brink of extinction tomorrow as I already explained.

Torakx

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do you think that such as stance is particularly healthy? After all, by your logic, my life experience is the ONLY experience I will ever have, so if I want to experience killing someone, I could kill you.

Note that this is no longer a question simply about abortion now, but a basic principle in morality. At what point is the right of the individual subservient to the greater good? If never, we can dispense with morality and just do what grabs our fancy.

I think that is simply how the world works. Morality are structures for control.
Morals do as much harm as they do good.
Therefore if pushed to a choice, I choose complete freedom of all things to act as they wish. However, there is also the issue of taking responsibility for your actions.
Do unto others etc.
That also means if my own parents had chosen that option, I would accept it, but it's a strange paradox...which also highlights one of my points on choice. If my parents had chosen abortion, I wouldn't be here to regret it. it then becomes a question of whohas the regret and in many cases in Ireland it is culture and society, not the baby itself.
Everyone is welcome to attack me, lie to me, steal from me, I don't judge that harshly. As long as I am allowed to be free to act in return.
The smart ones learn to survive this way and the more ignorant might end up in trouble.
I let karma or evolution take care of most things.
I suppose I must be amoral.
A note to the idea of regret. It might be said that the will to live and the action of organisms are showing a sign of seeking life and procreation, but there are also theories that pose the idea that living things live to expel their energy.
I don't think it is easy to come to a yes or no. I could abstain and ignore it. But given the choice, I chose in favour of preserving the life experience, over that which has no regret.
It seems the value for me is in the experience and for others it looks to be in the idea of having experienced.
Anti abortion is saying, one has the right to an experience that overrides any other right to their experience. Which I personally don't agree with.
But it is really all about perspectives here isn't it? We can't all decide on a correct answer.

The Corinthian

K4t wrote: »

In a discussion about abortion and a woman's right to control her own body, your use of language here is very telling. Subservient?

The language is called English. Nice try at playing the misogyny card, BTW.

K4t wrote: »

You simply cannot comprehend that a woman's right to control her own body is as much her right now, as it would be if she was the last woman left on earth tomorrow and there were ten guys surrounding her.

Actually, I can't really comprehend hyper-individualism to the level that individual right is more important than the right of the species to survive.

Were it a right to property - a patent for a medicine that someone is refusing to release even though not doing so would doom humanity to extinction - are you suggesting that this individual right would be more important than the collective one?

This is what I'm asking, but you simply cannot seem to get your head around the greater moral implication. It's bizarre.