Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Cabaal

So 3 cases were taken against the ref outcome, seems we are already down to 2.....maybe even 1

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-refused-access-to-registers-of-voters-in-challenge-to-abortion-referendum-result-850351.html

The basis for the cases are nothing more then grasping at straws, the vote in favour of yes is so massive that even if and that's a massive, massive if what they claimed was true for a few thousand people it would have had no material impact on the ref outcome.

Yes still wins, they need to accept this and stop wasting peoples time.

King Mob

Sean.3516 wrote: »

So? I’m prepared to disagree with the Bible.I never said I agreed with everything that was in the Bible or even all of the Bible.

But then morality can't come from the Bible, as the Bible is perfectly ok with both murder and abortion.

So how could it be used as support for the idea that both are wrong?

How do you know that these things are wrong if the bible says they are ok?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

My point was that religious belief and tradition and formed the basis for morality, when the first legal systems were being developed before the enlightenment.

The majority of the world did derive their morality from some sort of religious system

That's not what you said.
First you said that all morality about murder comes from the Ten commandments, which is not true.
Then you claimed that the majority of people got their morality from the bible, which is also not true.
So that's not your point.

Why did you claim that all morality about murder comes from the 10 commandments? Did you not realise that was patently false?

Also, if a foetus is a human, why do you believe that miscarriages should not be treated like any other human's death?
Do they have different rights or something?

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

So 3 cases were taken against the ref outcome, seems we are already down to 2.....maybe even 1

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-refused-access-to-registers-of-voters-in-challenge-to-abortion-referendum-result-850351.html

The basis for the cases are nothing more then grasping at straws, the vote in favour of yes is so massive that even if and that's a massive, massive if what they claimed was true for a few thousand people it would have had no material impact on the ref outcome.

Yes still wins, they need to accept this and stop wasting peoples time.

The judge got it right re actual ownership of the registers, the local authorities have them. Even then the electoral register is useless without the actual sheets the names are LINED-THROUGH on when the ballot paper is handed out in the voting centre for comparison purposes to see if the vote was used. There'd also be the problem of proving who it was actually X'ed the paper.

It'd take an age to get all the ticked-off name sheets together in locations with their respective electoral rolls and have hired staff go through each sheet individually, with oversight to ensure there were no errors made. Looking at that, it is nothing more than a fishing expedition request and a delaying tactic to frustrate the vote outcome.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Now why the genetic counselling unit would be in a childrens' hospital, rather than the Rotunda, Holles St or the Coombe is a bit of a puzzler.

lazygal wrote: »

AFAIK the expertise in a children's hospital as regards genetic conditions would be more in depth than doctors who specialise in foetal medicine. My consultant specialises in foetal medicine but wouldn't have been able to diagnose a genetic condition which in many cases won't be done until a child is born. And many people only know they're a carrier for a genetic illness once a child has been born already.

This. The more serious genetic diseases mostly manifest in childhood, and the expertise in treating them tends to be concentrated in children's hospitals. As a result that's where the expertise in researching and counselling in relation to the genetic aspect also tend to be found.

Temple Street also has a Dept of Clinical Genetics. But the specialism is not exclusive to children's hospitals; the Mater has a specialism in the genetics of neurological diseases.

Separating treatment and counselling would be inefficient, since a large cohort of those who need counselling also need treatment. And separating them into maternity hospitals would be worse, since many of those who need treatment and counselling are men.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

I'm being precise.

There is no explicit, constitutional right to travel. There is no universal right to travel - an individual's freedom to travel can be limited by courts, or the law, or by another constitutional article.

You have frequently argued in this thread that the general right to travel exists, but have never once provided any indication of where this right comes from.

The answer is that this freedom is implicit; it will generally be upheld by the courts but can be limited where necessary.

But it is not constitutionally protected, unlike the right to travel for an abortion.

There is a change. The change is that those rights can be limited. Under the 13th, the right to travel for an abortion cannot be limited.

I don’t think this is quite right. The Constitution never recognised or protected a specific “right to travel for an abortion”. Art 40.3.3 (as inserted by the 8th Amendment and as amended by the 13th and 14th Amendments) merely said that the right to life of the unborn “did not limit freedom to travel”, without any mention of the purpose of the travel. It did not confer a right to travel, and it did not say that freedom to travel couldn’t be limited; merely that Art. 40.3.3 didn’t itself limit it.

And the same goes for the “freedom to obtain or make available . . . information relation to services lawfully available in another state”. Art 40.3.3 did not itself limit that freedom, but it did not say that there was a corresponding right, or that the freedom could not be limited by other measures.

And now, of course, the new Art 40.3.3. will make no mention at all either of freedom to travel or freedom to obtain or communicate information.

seamus wrote: »

Just to clarify, in case you think I'm being obtuse, mischevious or nit-picking about this:

Before the referendum: The government cannot make it illegal to travel for an abortion
After the referendum: The government can make it illegal to travel for an abortion

They won't. It's inhumane, illogical and impractical. But it's a fact that an explicit, protected right, is being removed.

It’s academic, since as you point out there won’t be any legislation to limit the freedom to travel for an abortion, or to obtain/communicate information relating to abortion.

But, hypothetically, if a future government were to attempt that, what would be the position?

There’s nothing in Art 40.3.3. that offers any basis for attacking such laws. As regards restrictions on travel, you might argue that a right to leave the state is one of the unspecified personal rights protected by Art 40.1, but I think unspecified personal rights are a bit out of fashion at the moment. Plus, the Supreme Court might take note that the Constitution used to contain language that arguably provides some support for an implied right to travel, but the People deleted it. Similar issues arise with limitations on information, but there is the added possibility of arguing that the dissemination of information is protected by Art 40.6.1.i, the “right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions”. It may be a bit of a stretch to say that factual information is a “conviction or opinion”, but you could argue that in order to express your convictions and opinions you have to be able to express information upon which those convictions or opinions are founded, or by which they are influenced.

Still, I doubt whether we will ever have to test these arguments. Even at the height of the influence of pro-life sentiment in Ireland, there was never majority support for travel bans or information bans. In present or forseeable future political conditions, no Oireachtas is going to legislate for them.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

he has produced scientific evidence to back up his claim. he gave a link.

No, he replicated the usual exercise in repeating the same quotemined extracts in torturing semantics from the standard, deeply disingenuous anti-abortion sources. Somewhat oddly for someone coming at this with such an open mind, shortly after a lengthy national debate on the topic, one might think. Using US spelling, too.

This isn't by any chance a trans-national "lessons learned" exercise, is it? Vote coming up someplace else soon? If so, I'd offer this thought, first and foremost:

Bj&#248 wrote: »

Your boys took a hell of a beating!

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes still wins, they need to accept this and stop wasting peoples time.

Some people seem very far from acceptance. We'd another bish on the radio, saying that one third of people had "voted in favour of life". So two-thirds voted against life? Fairly surely that's not precisely what was on the ballot. People here offer the most incongruous "wrong on both sides" mischaracterisations equating the position of the majority of the majority, with the systematically mendacious antics of a minority of a minority of a minority.

I don't expect people to suddenly change their view, but altering their rhetoric to align with material psephological facts would be a handy first step.

alaimacerc

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It is a fact that when the sperm meets the egg and the chromosomes are arranged that individual human being begins, it has it’s own unique DNA and is absolutely a human being.

Scientifically inaccurate coming and going. Identical twins have the same DNA, and develop from the same conception: does that mean they're half a person each? Or that one is the true possessor of that "unique" DNA, and the other an evil duplicate? And conversely, mutations, such as those that lead to cancerous tumours, give rise to distinct DNA sequences. So by your logic, the mutant cells are a new "individual human being"? Nope: possession of a distinct genome is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for human personhood.

This argument from a clearly infeasible super-strength take on of genetic determinism is so prevalent in these arguments that I can really only conclude that it's the go-to reworking of the old "ensoulment" saw, taking as axiomatic that DNA somehow works as a one-for-one replacement, without troubling in any way with the biological facts.

As regards human rights, I was referring to human beings, not individual human cells.

A zygote is an "individual human cell" by my maths. I can do a recount if you gets some other number from your own scientific methods.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes, I’ll concede your second point but the moral premise to murder law in most parts of the world stems from a religious belief that murder is wrong because it says so in the Bible.

Less than a third of population of the world are any variety at all of Christian. You've either a statistically unusual idea of "most parts", or a less than fashionably "Judeo-Christian" one of "the Bible". Need to lump in Islam to get anywhere near "most".

And talking of the bible...

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Do the numbers in your name represent a bible passage ?

For a moment I thought the "Sean" might have been a clue, too: but the Book of John doesn't have that many chapters. (D'oh. But who needs to be a bible scholar when one has google?)

My guess is that numbers are, as it goes, from Numbers. Them pesky baby-murderers, etc.

alaimacerc

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so as soon as fertilisation occurs it is human? so the morning after pill is therefore murder, do i understand you correctly?

Best medical research available is that the MAP acts predominantly, and as far as is known exclusively, as a contraceptive in the strict sense: it prevents ovulation, and not implantation. Which isn't wildly surprising, as the more widely available one is indeed just a large one-off dose of hormonal contraception.

Of course, this isn't utterly certain: there could be some degree of secondary mechanism. Which is why some of the fundier US protestant evangelical types think all hormonal contraception should be banned, just on the offchance that's the case. Pretty much reinventing the Catholic church's "ban it all anyway" position. But followed through to its "logical" conclusion, this line of thinking would rationalise banning any woman of child-bearing age from having a hot bath or skipping meals.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

As regards restrictions on travel, you might argue that a right to leave the state is one of the unspecified personal rights protected by Art 40.1, but I think unspecified personal rights are a bit out of fashion at the moment.

Let's not entirely forget about EU law, of course, which while it doesn't directly insert into into the Irish constitution, has similar force, and is similarly difficult to change. To get around Freedom of Movement, one would either need to withdraw from the EU (referendum required), or to alter EU law itself, which would need treaty change... and hence a referendum in Ireland to ratify it.

I broadly agree with your analysis of seamus's claim that "a right to travel for an abortion" was just textually abolished. OTOH, that SC in the past gone fairly large distances into parsing the supposed intent of such propositions. It's not impossible that they might find that the 36th was passed on the basis that we'd "stop sending the problem to England" in both senses. But that seems fairly tortured and unlikely to me.

Of course, there's much more the Irish state could have done to make abortion elsewhere less legal short of restricting travel per se. The creation of inchoate offences. (Preparation, attempt, conspiracy, etc.) Universalising jurisdiction of the material offence. As is already the case with murder, notably -- and we do endlessly hear "absolutely exactly the same as murder (except when it isn't)" from a lot of the pro-8th lobby.

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

Let's not entirely forget about EU law, of course, which while it doesn't directly insert into into the Irish constitution, has similar force, and is similarly difficult to change. To get around Freedom of Movement, one would either need to withdraw from the EU (referendum required), or to alter EU law itself, which would need treaty change... and hence a referendum in Ireland to ratify it.

Well, I'm not sure that freedom of movement would be an enormous help here. It might be invoked against (say) UK legislation aimed at impeding Irish women from going to the UK for abortions. But it wouldn't be so easy, I think, for an Irish citizen to invoke it against the Irish government to argue against legislation restricting her right to leave Ireland. Plus, freedom of movement is free movement of labour and, leaving aside some appalling tasteless puns which we won't go there, there's not much obvious connection between travelling to have an abortion and travelling to exercise your right to labour.

The European Convention on Human Rights would be a much more productive avenue to explore; Ireland's restrictive abortion legislation has already caused us problems there, and there would certainly be a prospect of challenging movement controls or information controls.

But, as I think we're agreed, it's academic. There will be no laws restricting travel or information to impede access to abortion, so we'll never know how the arguments against them would stand up in court.

The avenue that is still open to pro-life activists in Ireland is an avenue that was always open to them and, to my mind, the avenue that they should always have been following, which is to try and change the social, cultural and political context within which women have to face crisis pregnancies so as to make it (a) less likely that they will find themselves facing crisis pregnancies in the first place, and (b) if they do face crisis pregnancies, more likely or more possible that, being free to choose, they will choose not to terminate. But that would require them to abandon the tactic of controlling women through the might of the law and the power of the state, and instead embrace the tactic of winning over hearts and minds. So don't hold your breath.

ohnonotgmail

alaimacerc wrote: »

And talking of the bible...


For a moment I thought the "Sean" might have been a clue, too: but the Book of John doesn't have that many chapters. (D'oh. But who needs to be a bible scholar when one has google?)

My guess is that numbers are, as it goes, from Numbers. Them pesky baby-murderers, etc.

Yep. So much for an open mind

But if someone strikes and kills another person with a piece of iron, it is murder, and the murderer must be executed

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Yep. So much for an open mind

Well, hold on; your own "open mind" is leaping without any evidence at all to the assumption that the digits after Sean's name are not only a reference to a bible verse but specifically a reference to a verse in the Book of Numbers - a verse which appears to have nothing to with abortion, but appears in a passage which distinguishes malicious killings from those arising from accident.

If it has to be a scripture verse, why not Psalms 35:16? ("Like the ungodly they maliciously mocked; they gnashed their teeth at me.") Or indeed, Ezekiel 16:35. ("Therefore, you prostitute, hear the word of the Lord!")

Or - here's a thought - maybe it's not a bible verse at all?

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, hold on; your own "open mind" is leaping without any evidence at all to the assumption that the digits after Sean's name are not only a reference to a bible verse but specifically a reference to a verse in the Book of Numbers - a verse which appears to have nothing to with abortion, but appears in a passage which distinguishes malicious killings from those arising from accident.

If it has to be a scripture verse, why not Psalms 35:16? ("Like the ungodly they maliciously mocked; they gnashed their teeth at me.") Or indeed, Ezekiel 16:35. ("Therefore, you prostitute, hear the word of the Lord!")

Or - here's a thought - maybe it's not a bible verse at all?

No evidence at all? There is nothing they have posted to indicate that they consider the bible as the source of moral teaching? absolutely nothing. move along. nothing to see here.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No evidence at all? There is nothing they have posted to indicate that they consider the bible as the source of moral teaching? absolutely nothing. move along. nothing to see here.

It's a wholly unevidenced leap, though, from that to an assumption that his username incorporates a reference to a biblical verse which, let's be honest, is not the verse you'd pick if you wanted to make a point about abortion. There are much more pertinent verses you could pick to make that point.

Indeed, it's even not the verse you'd pick if you want to make a point about murder. It deals specifically with murder by hitting someone with an iron bar. It forms part of a list of various murders - hitting with a stone, hitting with a wooden object, striking with a fist, pushing over a precipice, etc - whose common feature is that they are all characterised by malice or emnity. The point being made is that the same killings, without emnity, are not murder. In other words its the intention, not the method of killing, that defines murder.

So what would be the point of picking this one verse, specifically about iron bars? Does Sean have a fixation on iron bars? Does he think "iron bars" is a coded reference to abortifacients?

So, I'm going with "no, this is wildly unlikely to be a reference to Numbers 35:16. That makes no sense at all. Besides, it would be much more fun if it was Ezekiel 16:35, so if we are going with improbable and unevidenced leaps, that's my pick.".

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a wholly unevidenced leap, though, from that to an assumption that his username incorporates a reference to a biblical verse which, let's be honest, is not the verse you'd pick if you wanted to make a point about abortion. There are much more pertinent verses you could pick to make that point.

Indeed, it's even not the verse you'd pick if you want to make a point about murder. It deals specifically with murder by hitting someone with an iron bar. It forms part of a list of various murders - hitting with a stone, hitting with a wooden object, striking with a fist, pushing over a precipice, etc - whose common feature is that they are all characterised by malice or emnity. The point being made is that the same killings, without emnity, are not murder. In other words its the intention, not the method of killing, that defines murder.

So what would be the point of picking this one verse, specifically about iron bars? Does Sean have a fixation on iron bars? Does he think "iron bars" is a coded reference to abortifacients?

So, I'm going with "no, this is wildly unlikely to be a reference to Numbers 35:16. That makes no sense at all. Besides, it would be much more fun if it was Ezekiel 16:35, so if we are going with improbable and unevidenced leaps, that's my pick.".

i'll stick with my version thanks.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Let me be clear, I believe it’s a human being from conception because that’s where life begins. This is corroborated by science.

Let me be clear. I too believe it is a human from conception. But only in terms of biological taxonomy. But I do not see ANY argument coming from you, despite me asking a few times now, as to why you think biological taxonomy should be the mediation point for philosophical concepts.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

My point was that religious belief and tradition and formed the basis for morality, when the first legal systems were being developed before the enlightenment. The majority of the world did derive their morality from some sort of religious system

And as I already said to you, but you appear not to have deigned to read or respond to it, I do not think that is a valid or safe assumption you are making.

It is just as likely that peoples moral system came first and was simply codified in religion by those who saw religion as a means to disseminate the morality they already held to.

So if you are going to assert the majority of the world derived morality from religion, rather than the majority of religion derived morality from US...... you have quite a lot of substantive work ahead of you to substantiate that assertion.

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

So? I’m prepared to disagree with the Bible.I never said I agreed with everything that was in the Bible or even all of the Bible. My point was that religious belief and tradition and formed the basis for morality, when the first legal systems were being developed before the enlightenment.
The majority of the world did derive their morality from some sort of religious system

Or the existing morality formed the basis for religious belief. Do you think when Moses came down with the 10 (10,12, whatever you're having yourself) commandments that the israelites said "Wait, we shouldn't be murdering each other?"

Mark Hamill

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Sorry, I’ll clarify. I’m not in favor of investigating every miscarriage

So does that mean you are not in favour of investigating the deaths of every child who dies?

Mark Hamill

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The fact that there is development means that it’s alive.

But the development actually starts in the testes and ovaries, with the development of the sperm and egg. So are they alive? What is your position on masturbation? Should women mourn their periods?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And what of the millions of sperm who do enter the woman's body but fail to fertilize the egg?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, lets see what Sean.3516 says, as it's his logic I'm trying to follow.

aloyisious

coming up, according to it's list of news items, on RTE radio news is Simon Harris explaining what he means by zones around maternity hospitals. He's in Paris, or Brussels, signing up to a new EU cheaper medicinal deal within the EU and big pharma. He said exclusion goes against what he stands for, re freedom of expression, but having women having to undergo seeing vulgar images displayed by anti-abortion protests while attending maternity hospitals is not to his liking so he's talking to the AG on exclusion zones.

Cabaal

... Awaiting comment saying how wrong this is and that they should be free to protest.

given the same poster previously said police should batton charge protesters its amazing they can't see how silly their comments are.

I guess you only want people intimidating women only when you agree with them.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well no I just said the exact opposite of that in my post. Not sure why you would want to change what I said into what I did not say.
I did not say "neither has consciousness". I very clearly, intentionally and openly said the coma patient HAS consciousness. Did you just decide to ignore that for your own ends, to pretend I said the EXACT opposite of what is there in black and white?

In that case, I can only say you are wrong. Even a boxer who has been knocked out for 60 seconds has been unconscious for that amount of time.
But is still very much alive, and still a human being.

seamus wrote: »

The coma argument is a really terrible one, because there are a series of tests designed to determine if someone in a coma is actually alive, or whether they're a corpse attached to life support machines. In other words, designed to determine if they're a living human being with rights, or a 70kg bag of cells without rights.
How many of those tests do you think a zygote would pass?

I'm not sure what tests you mean, but in reality there are no definitive tests. Former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon was kept alive in a coma for 8 years, just in case he might regain consciousness.
A corpse attached to life support systems will start to smell, after a few days in a warm environment. So easy enough to distinguish from somebody who is alive but in a coma.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

In that case, I can only say you are wrong. Even a boxer who has been knocked out for 60 seconds has been unconscious for that amount of time.
But is still very much alive, and still a human being.
I'm not sure what tests you mean, but in reality there are no definitive tests. Former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon was kept alive in a coma for 8 years, just in case he might regain consciousness.
A corpse attached to life support systems will start to smell, after a few days in a warm environment. So easy enough to distinguish from somebody who is alive but in a coma.

Are you suggesting that disconnecting the life support system for someone who has been in a permanent vegetative state for some years is tantamount to murder? There's a world of a difference between being unconscious for a few minutes, as many of us have, to being comatose for many months or even years. Even then there are big variations in levels of measurable brain activity for people in comas. Needless to say, a foetus in the first trimester has neither the developed brain nor measurable brain activity that would suggest any remote possibility of consciousness. You're really in the realm of souls and other such religious mumbo jumbo when comparing a foetus at that stage to a newborn baby. Either that or you're simply supporting the pro-life argument to further a regressive, patriarchal, conservative agenda.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Are you suggesting that disconnecting the life support system for someone who has been in a permanent vegetative state for some years is tantamount to murder?

Interesting question. I'd say disconnection after a few days is tantamount to murder. After 8 years it is not. So what is the difference? I think as time goes by, the potential for human consciousness to be be regained decreases.
Yet potential is exactly what the embryo has, in abundance.

smacl wrote: »

There's a world of a difference between being unconscious for a few minutes, as many of us have, to being comatose for many months or even years. Even then there are big variations in levels of measurable brain activity for people in comas.

Indeed, and "brain activity" is separate to consciousness. Some brain activity is only for the purposes of controlling the various organs, the basic life support systems. Even an earthworm has that level of sentience.
For the person in a coma additional artificial supplementation may also be required. Whether consciousness will ever return in that situation would be an unknown.

smacl wrote: »

Needless to say, a foetus in the first trimester has neither the developed brain nor measurable brain activity that would suggest any remote possibility of consciousness.

I agree. What it has is the beginnings of it; the potential.

smacl wrote: »

You're really in the realm of souls and other such religious mumbo jumbo when comparing a foetus at that stage to a newborn baby. Either that or you're simply supporting the pro-life argument to further a regressive, patriarchal, conservative agenda.

No I'm not, because I am not saying a foetus has equal consciousness to a new born baby. I would say the shock of the birth process probably stimulates consciousness to a slightly higher level than it was at the day before.
If you're going to say the person in a coma has no human rights, or the unborn baby has no human rights, then the onus is on you to say when those rights were extinguished and/or come into being.
I don't have to say, because I'm not the one calling for the destruction of this person/non-person. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, just in case.

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

IIf you're going to say the person in a coma has no human rights, or the unborn baby has no human rights, then the onus is on you to say when those rights were extinguished and/or come into being.
I don't have to say, because I'm not the one calling for the destruction of this person/non-person. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, just in case.

At what point do you get human rights then?
Fertilization?
Implantation?
Sperm and egg?

And why at that point? Cause that's when the soul is implanted or...?

aloyisious

I'm curious as to whom is being referred-to in the "I'M giving the benefit of the doubt, just in case" quote? Is it being given to the person/non-person referred to or to smacl in respect of his/her posts? The debater who posted the quote is on my ignore list so if some-one could repost any reply from that person. I'd be obliged.