Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My point is I see no reason for affording a fetus rights.

Does that mean you're taking the position that there cannot be a reason for affording a foetus rights?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Arguments I do see for affording other things rights are not relevant to that point, or this thread.

Why not? I would have thought they were enormously relevant both to the point and the thread, given the context. You (presumably) take the position that some things should be afforded rights at some point; can your reasoning be wholly unconnected to why other things should not?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Suffice to say however I consider Rights to be very heavily and proportionately connected with things like sentience and consciousness. An attribute a fetus not only seemingly lacks, but lacks the structures even required to produce it in the first place.

That really doesn't suffice in fairness but it's a great starting point; which rights and in what way are they heavily and proportionately connected with things like sentience and consciousness?
For instance; having established that a foetus is not yet sentient or currently conscious you believe it ought not to have a right to life (if I take you up correctly), does it then follow that an octogenarian (or accident victim) no longer conscious and/or not displaying signs of sentience ought not to have a right to life either?
Should a right to marry (for instance) should have some other qualification?
What about a right to vote? Or own property, or be emancipated?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

One of the issues I have with the idea of affording an embryo this so-called "right to life" is why only that right and nothing else? If it has that right (under certain circumstances, why not other rights too?

What other rights could we usefully and reasonably confer on a foetus? Most of the rights we give to citizens or residents wouldn't seem to be terribly useful to a foetus. A right to inherit would seem to be useful; it might need some finessing of legislation but I suppose it could be done. Can you think of any others?

volchitsa wrote: »

Let's say it's because the fetus has sufficient human characteristics for us to want to accord it some respect, which is probably a good thing IMO, something like the way we consider it normal to respect a dead human body in a way we don't do with animals. But a dead human body would never have any rights that required risking any possible harm to a living person. That's the issue I have with the ban on abortion, not that we should "respect life" but that this respect for life may entail causing harm to a living person. I just don't see where the embryo/fetus gets that "right" from.

Well at least that's an easy one to answer; it gets that right from the same place that everyone gets all their rights; the Republic. We the people confer rights via the Constitution (and the Supreme Court as it turns out).

volchitsa wrote: »

Its life is not considered important enough to stop IVF clinics from destroying as many as they choose, so it's less important than financial imperatives. So why should it be necessary to force it to harm, however unwittingly, its mother?

I'd say that life is considered terribly important by the people who made it and are desperate for a child. But whether it's life is considered important is not the measure used to determine whether or not it has a right to life is it? Once it is implanted it is considered an unborn person with a right to life, before that it isn't. And that's not exactly an unusual measure; as Looksee recently pointed out the British NHS measures pregnancy from implantation, not conception.

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

Does that mean you're taking the position that there cannot be a reason for affording a foetus rights?

No. I stated my position. I see no utility in you changing my position into one I did not state. Perhaps there can be such reasons. I just know no one has presented me with one yet. And I can not discuss, rebut, or accept arguments no one has made to me.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. I stated my position. I see no utility in you changing my position into one I did not state. Perhaps there can be such reasons. I just know no one has presented me with one yet. And I can not discuss, rebut, or accept arguments no one has made to me.

I'm not changing your position, I asked you a question. If you feel it is not the case that there cannot be a reason for affording a foetus rights, then your reasoning for affording anything rights becomes significant. Is it constructed to deliberately exclude a person who has not yet passed a given point of maturity, or does it follow an objective standard which simply fails to include a foetus? That's why I asked you the other questions.

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not changing your position, I asked you a question.

I stated my position and you restated it in a way that was entirely different from the position I actually hold and was not even remotely implied in what I wrote.

If you understand what my actual position is now, then that is progress.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I stated my position and you restated it in a way that was entirely different from the position I actually hold and was not even remotely implied in what I wrote.

I don't think so? I said:

Absolam wrote: »

Does that mean you're taking the position that there cannot be a reason for affording a foetus rights?

That really reads like a question to me. Don't you think the "?" on the end indicated a question rather than a statement?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you understand what my actual position is now, then that is progress.

Do you think so? Only it seems to me that by focusing on claiming the question I posted was a statement, you're avoiding everything else I posted. That doesn't seem like progress at all.....

nozzferrahhtoo

Avoiding nothing except irrelevant tangents. My position is clear and plain. I see no reason to afford, or be concerned with, rights for a fetus. Therefore I see no arguments against abortion of that fetus.

Nothing to be avoided because there is nothing TO avoid.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

I have a feeling if I give my opinion before nozzferrahhtoo has the opportunity to give his I'll be distracting from an interesting proposition, so if you don't mind I'll park answering my own question until nozzferrahhtoo has had the opportunity to do so

I can see that you ended up spilling the beans in another post, so I'll get to that in a minute. :P

Absolam wrote: »

I'd agree; autonomy seems a fairly spurious criterion. A breastfeeding newborn could be 'siphoning of someone else's biological system' on the one hand, on the other hand 'dependent exlusivey on a specific individual biological entity' seems a definition of non-autonomous so specific as to be deliberately designed to only include certain people.

How about if we tag "exclusively" in front of the former? Although even without it, breastfeeding is not the only form of nutrition available to a newborn. Adults siphon the biological system of cows, but we are not exclusively reliant on it.

Absolam wrote: »

A legal identity (as opposed to an identity, I think it's important to note you're addressing the former not the latter here), as you say could be granted at any time. Though not all rights applicable are then applied; a person with a legal identity still doesn't acquire a plethora of rights until they become an adult. So since, as you say, it can be granted whenever we please, it's kind of a circular argument; we afford those rights at that time because that's when we choose to grant the facility for those rights. It's not an argument for affording those rights at a point of development, it's an argument for affording rights on the grant of a legal identity (and for the avoidance of well rehearsed argument a legal identity being distinct from a legal entity or legal person).

Sorry if I was being unclear about the use of "applicable", I did mean those applicable to the person at that age. So far, the only right applied to the unborn is the right to life and is given a special subsection (the dreaded 40.3.3) in the constitution. By merit of it being given special treatment in the constitution it equates to (or appears to equate to) no other rights being applicable to the unborn. That is further expressed through the wording of section 3 where it repeatedly states that it applies the protection to citizens, of which the unborn is not considered.

I know that you address this somewhat in another post when you ask what other rights would/should be applicable to the unborn, and the first that comes to mind is bodily integrity.

From Ryan v Attorney General [1965] 1 IR 294 at 295.

"That the general guarantee of personal rights in section 3 (1) of Art. 40 extends to rights not specified in Art. 40. One of the personal rights of the citizen protected by the general guarantee is the right to bodily integrity."

Again, the wording applies this ruling to citizens which an unborn child is not. Although I may be wrong about this, I cannot find any information about citizenship being applied to the unborn.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

We definitely do appear to choose to afford rights to individuals as they reach points in their lives that we associate with increasing autonomy, up to the right to own property, vote, marry etc, and we have obviously varied those points through history and in different cultures. Which makes it seem to me that we afford rights at the approximate stage of development that we feel as a society that they might most reasonably begin to be exercised in a manner we consider proper.
So, marriage at 12 has become marriage at 16.
Franchise has gone from males over 21 owning property to all at the age of 18.
So, I end up answering robdonns question before I give nozzferrahhtoo the opportunity (apologies nozzferrahhtoo); it seems to me we afford people rights not based on their personal stage of development, but at an approximate point to where our society feels they can best make use of them; the argument for affording a foetus a right to life is the same as the argument for affording a 16 year old a right to marry; that we as a society feel it is an appropriate time for them to be able to make use of that right.
And like all other rights, we can change our minds about when or if we afford those rights to anyone.

While I mostly agree with what you've said, there are certain rights to which we do apply based on their personal stage of development - the right to bodily integrity being my go-to example which is very separate from the right to life. We do not afford this right to the unborn, which if given the right to life then it could be argued that this should be applied too as I would imagine that "our society feels they can best make use of [it]", but it's not as we only grant this to the born.

Now maybe it's the exception that proves the rule, but I still feel it stands out enough to be worth noting.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Avoiding nothing except irrelevant tangents.

To be clear; any discussion of when anything ought to be afforded a right is an irrelevant tangent? To be doubly clear; that's not a restatement of your opinion, it's a question as to whether or not this is an opinion you hold. Further questions may follow.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My position is clear and plain. I see no reason to afford, or be concerned with, rights for a fetus. Therefore I see no arguments against abortion of that fetus.

Right; my question being, if you see a reason to afford, or be concerned with, rights for anything, what would it be? To be as plain as possible, I'm trying to understand what causes you to exclude a foetus from the possibility of having rights that you afford to other things.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing to be avoided because there is nothing TO avoid.

Well, there obviously were a few questions. You can read them; they're just above these posts.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

How about if we tag "exclusively" in front of the former? Although even without it, breastfeeding is not the only form of nutrition available to a newborn. Adults siphon the biological system of cows, but we are not exclusively reliant on it.

Exclusively siphoning of someone else's biological system? Would that not also be a definition of non-autonomous so specific as to be deliberately designed to only include certain people? If you're targeting a redefinition so specifically you may as well give up the pretence of saying not autonomous and simply say not a foetus surely?

robdonn wrote: »

Sorry if I was being unclear about the use of "applicable", I did mean those applicable to the person at that age. So far, the only right applied to the unborn is the right to life and is given a special subsection (the dreaded 40.3.3) in the constitution. By merit of it being given special treatment in the constitution it equates to (or appears to equate to) no other rights being applicable to the unborn. That is further expressed through the wording of section 3 where it repeatedly states that it applies the protection to citizens, of which the unborn is not considered.

No, I don't think that part was unclear; I think it's well accepted that a person whilst unborn only has one right, and acquires others as they mature.

robdonn wrote: »

I know that you address this somewhat in another post when you ask what other rights would/should be applicable to the unborn, and the first that comes to mind is bodily integrity.
From Ryan v Attorney General [1965] 1 IR 294 at 295.
Again, the wording applies this ruling to citizens which an unborn child is not. Although I may be wrong about this, I cannot find any information about citizenship being applied to the unborn.

I think it was Volchitsas question rather than mine, but there is a process for becoming a citizen of Ireland which I don't think someone who hasn't been born yet can complete? I'm not sure any action could be taken by the State which could infringe a potential right to bodily integrity of the unborn that wouldn't also potentially infringe it's right to life though? And if it could, what purpose would conferring that right achieve?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

While I mostly agree with what you've said, there are certain rights to which we do apply based on their personal stage of development - the right to bodily integrity being my go-to example which is very separate from the right to life. We do not afford this right to the unborn, which if given the right to life then it could be argued that this should be applied too as I would imagine that "our society feels they can best make use of [it]", but it's not as we only grant this to the born.
Now maybe it's the exception that proves the rule, but I still feel it stands out enough to be worth noting.

Well, what would granting such a right achieve? Is there any action that could be taken against the unborn currently that would be protected by such a right, bearing in mind that it will also need to be practicable for the State to vindicate that right? If we look at how the "right to integrity of the person" is applied it was considered (in the Judgement you provided) "to mean that no mutilation of the body or any of its members may be carried out on any citizen under authority of the law except for the good of the whole body and that no process which is or may, as a matter of probability, be dangerous or harmful to the life or health of the citizens or any of them may be imposed (in the sense of being made compulsory) by an Act of the Oireachtas". If we were to change 'citizen' to 'person' in that sentence, would the effect be to provide any greater protection to the unborn than they are currently afforded?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

In which case, you didn't need to quote my post at all, since your 'reply' had nothing to do with it?

As I posted last, my posting of Breda's opinion was for the edification of people. I believe Breda meant the mention of a hospice in respect of a feotus with FFA being allowed proceed to a full-term birth and then, after birth, being allowed die in a hospice, as a de-facto right similar to that given to other birthed people with fatal illnesses. Maybe you might be of the opinion that such an event for a feotus is NOT a de-facto recognition of a right but I believe Breda does see it as de-facto - even if it's not de-jure - in line with her right-to-life belief for feotus, and that was what she meant in her opinion-piece. Then again maybe I'm wrong and Breda meant something else completely. I await your thoughts and ?'s on this.

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

To be clear; any discussion of when anything ought to be afforded a right is an irrelevant tangent?

I am discussing the fetus. Nothing else. If you wish to discuss anything else then by all means find someone else, or start another thread. If you want to discuss anything with me, I will be staying on topic.

Absolam wrote: »

Right; my question being, if you see a reason to afford, or be concerned with, rights for anything, what would it be?

I am not discussing "anything". I am discussing the fetus. If you wish to discuss anything else then by all means find someone else, or start another thread. If you want to discuss anything with me, I will be staying on topic.

Absolam wrote: »

To be as plain as possible, I'm trying to understand what causes you to exclude a foetus from the possibility of having rights that you afford to other things.

To be as plain as possible, I answered that already in a post above. That you did not like the answer does not mean I never gave one.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, there obviously were a few questions. You can read them; they're just above these posts.

I read them and answered the ones relevant to my point and this thread. So directing me to things I already read and responded to is just irrelevant filler. The rest I have ignored as they are not on topic. I am discussing the fetus. Nothing else. If you wish to discuss anything else then by all means find someone else, or start another thread. If you want to discuss anything with me, I will be staying on topic.

And my point on this thread and this topic is that no one, least of all you, have put forward any argument for affording the fetus rights. Nor do you appear like you are about to do so any time soon.

robdonn

I'm going to be moving quotes around to try keep them within relative context, apologies if this causes any confusion.

Absolam wrote: »

Exclusively siphoning of someone else's biological system? Would that not also be a definition of non-autonomous so specific as to be deliberately designed to only include certain people? If you're targeting a redefinition so specifically you may as well give up the pretence of saying not autonomous and simply say not a foetus surely?

Well I hardly believe that it should be the exact wording for such a definition but I think that such a distinction should be made between the born and unborn. The unborn, until the point of viability (which does vary depending on the availability of medical technology), are distinctly different from the born. Their biology is irrecoverably dependant on the body of another yet are separate from the rights of that other body.

It circles back to one of my common arguments about a person in need of an organ transplant is allowed to die rather than defy the bodily integrity of another by removing a donor organ against their will. A situation like this may be seen as immoral in isolation, but essential in the broader view of personal rights.

A person therefore should have the right to cease providing their bodily functions to another, even if the technology is not available to sustain the life of the other.

Absolam wrote: »

I think it was Volchitsas question rather than mine, ...

I was referring to this:

Absolam wrote: »

What other rights could we usefully and reasonably confer on a foetus? Most of the rights we give to citizens or residents wouldn't seem to be terribly useful to a foetus. A right to inherit would seem to be useful; it might need some finessing of legislation but I suppose it could be done. Can you think of any others?

Absolam wrote: »

No, I don't think that part was unclear; I think it's well accepted that a person whilst unborn only has one right, and acquires others as they mature.

Absolam wrote: »

I think it was Volchitsas question rather than mine, but there is a process for becoming a citizen of Ireland which I don't think someone who hasn't been born yet can complete? I'm not sure any action could be taken by the State which could infringe a potential right to bodily integrity of the unborn that wouldn't also potentially infringe it's right to life though? And if it could, what purpose would conferring that right achieve?

Absolam wrote: »

Well, what would granting such a right achieve? Is there any action that could be taken against the unborn currently that would be protected by such a right, bearing in mind that it will also need to be practicable for the State to vindicate that right? If we look at how the "right to integrity of the person" is applied it was considered (in the Judgement you provided) "to mean that no mutilation of the body or any of its members may be carried out on any citizen under authority of the law except for the good of the whole body and that no process which is or may, as a matter of probability, be dangerous or harmful to the life or health of the citizens or any of them may be imposed (in the sense of being made compulsory) by an Act of the Oireachtas". If we were to change 'citizen' to 'person' in that sentence, would the effect be to provide any greater protection to the unborn than they are currently afforded?

I would imagine that the right to not be mutilated should be applicable to all? If I were to cut off your fingers I would not be charged with attempting to end your life, so your right to life has no part in it. Serious alcohol abuse during pregnancy resulting in Foetal Alcohol Syndrome could be considered such an abuse, as would drug use that results in substance dependency in newborns. But we don't enact laws to defend the unborn from such abuse (the drug laws do to an effect, but they are not there with any purpose to protect the unborn), heavy drinking during pregnancy is ill-advised, but not illegal despite it's known risks. You cannot smoke in a car with a child present, but you can disable your unborn with alcohol without any repercussions.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

As I posted last, my posting of Breda's opinion was for the edification of people.

I got that; I replied to it pointing out you didn't need to quote my post at all, since your 'reply' had nothing to do with it.

aloyisious wrote: »

I believe Breda meant the mention of a hospice in respect of a feotus with FFA being allowed proceed to a full-term birth and then, after birth, being allowed die in a hospice, as a de-facto right similar to that given to other birthed people with fatal illnesses. Maybe you might be of the opinion that such an event for a feotus is NOT a de-facto recognition of a right but I believe Breda does see it as de-facto - even if it's not de-jure - in line with her right-to-life belief for feotus, and that was what she meant in her opinion-piece. Then again maybe I'm wrong and Breda meant something else completely. I await your thoughts and ?'s on this.

I think it's difficult to see what relationship it has to an argument for when anything ought to be afforded any rights? She obviously hasn't offered any such argument, and your speculative extrapolation from her piece doesn't seem to either?
I don't think anyone has a (de facto or de jure) right to die in a hospice, whether they or born or unborn, so that seems a bit of a non starter; certainly she hasn't offered that opinion for either so I think you're creating an argument that isn't there to be honest.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am discussing the fetus. Nothing else. If you wish to discuss anything else then by all means find someone else, or start another thread. If you want to discuss anything with me, I will be staying on topic.

Hmm. In that case, can I suggest you didn't need to engage with my question at all, since it wasn't about the foetus?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not discussing "anything". I am discussing the fetus. If you wish to discuss anything else then by all means find someone else, or start another thread. If you want to discuss anything with me, I will be staying on topic.

Sure; the topic I offered (that you responded to) was "What is the argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development?". If you feel like withdrawing now, I obviously understand.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To be as plain as possible, I answered that already in a post above. That you did not like the answer does not mean I never gave one.

Actually you didn't; you said you "see no reason for affording a fetus rights". Which is not the same as what causes you to exclude a foetus from the possibility of having rights that you afford to other things. Though obviously, if you're not prepared to discuss why you would afford rights to anything, it's difficult to see why you wouldn't include a foetus amongst those anythings.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I read them and answered the ones relevant to my point and this thread. So directing me to things I already read and responded to is just irrelevant filler.

Well, in fairness when I said you avoided everything else I posted, you replied "Nothing to be avoided because there is nothing TO avoid." Which would certainly give the impression that you weren't actually aware of the things that you're now saying weren't nothing, but things you read and answered. Actually, now you mention it, which questions did you answer?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The rest I have ignored as they are not on topic. I am discussing the fetus. Nothing else. If you wish to discuss anything else then by all means find someone else, or start another thread. If you want to discuss anything with me, I will be staying on topic.

Well, they're certainly on topic with regards to the question I asked you (that you replied to). Do you mean they're simply not a topic that you're comfortable discussing? If so, that's fine, you need only say so (which is not to say no conclusions could be drawn from it).

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And my point on this thread and this topic is that no one, least of all you, have put forward any argument for affording the fetus rights. Nor do you appear like you are about to do so any time soon.

Actually, I did (I'll admit the 'least of all' made me cry a bit though), I guess you may have missed it whilst you were reading and responding to the 'irrelevant filler'. Since we've gotten past that, maybe you'll fancy engaging with the broader discussion now? Or not, don't feel pressured .

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Well I hardly believe that it should be the exact wording for such a definition but I think that such a distinction should be made between the born and unborn. The unborn, until the point of viability (which does vary depending on the availability of medical technology), are distinctly different from the born. Their biology is irrecoverably dependant on the body of another yet are separate from the rights of that other body.

Which is fair enough; there's undeniably a difference between a foetus, a newborn, a child, an adolescent and an adult and we are cogniscant of those differences in the rights, responsibilities & freedoms we confer on them. My point being, if you finesse a distinction finely enough you can exclude a developmental stage, but all you're doing is deliberately creating a measure with which to exclude it; it's not as if there is a logical distinction in the right which of itself excludes a development stage.

robdonn wrote: »

It circles back to one of my common arguments about a person in need of an organ transplant is allowed to die rather than defy the bodily integrity of another by removing a donor organ against their will. A situation like this may be seen as immoral in isolation, but essential in the broader view of personal rights.

That argument is usually modified by considering the case of siamese twins, where both are equally dependent on the same organs with equal chances of survival would one be permitted to separate herself from the other causing her death without immediate cause (ie imminent death of one or both) and the consent of both? It's true that the child/mother dependance is unique, and not truly comparable to either, but I'd suggest siamese twins comes closer than compelling organ donations

robdonn wrote: »

A person therefore should have the right to cease providing their bodily functions to another, even if the technology is not available to sustain the life of the other.

Honestly, I don't think so. That someone should not be compelled to become involved in sustaining the life of another in the first place is something I can't disagree with, but once someone is engaged in sustaining another life, I don't think they can simply reject the responsibility. If I'm keeping someone alive with chest compressions and artificial respiration, and decide to simply walk away with no one else to take over, would I not be to some degree culpable for their death? Don't I have some responsibility to keep them alive until someone else can help?

robdonn wrote: »

I was referring to this: "What other rights could we usefully and reasonably confer on a foetus?"

Yes, I know. I was replying to Volchitsas question;

volchitsa wrote: »

One of the issues I have with the idea of affording an embryo this so-called "right to life" is why only that right and nothing else? If it has that right (under certain circumstances, why not other rights too?

robdonn wrote: »

I would imagine that the right to not be mutilated should be applicable to all? If I were to cut off your fingers I would not be charged with attempting to end your life, so your right to life has no part in it. Serious alcohol abuse during pregnancy resulting in Foetal Alcohol Syndrome could be considered such an abuse, as would drug use that results in substance dependency in newborns. But we don't enact laws to defend the unborn from such abuse (the drug laws do to an effect, but they are not there with any purpose to protect the unborn), heavy drinking during pregnancy is ill-advised, but not illegal despite it's known risks. You cannot smoke in a car with a child present, but you can disable your unborn with alcohol without any repercussions.

None of those relate to the right to bodily integrity though; it isn't a right not to be mutilated, to put it bluntly, it's a right not to be mutilated under authority of the law except for the good of the whole body. If you cut off all my fingers you wouldn't be charged with violating my right to bodily integrity, you'd be charged with assault causing harm. If you did something (legal) that caused my fingers to be cut off without intending to cut them off, it would not be an assault. So, serious alchohol abuse with the intent of harming an unborn child might be classed as an assault, but I imagine it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone engaged in them with such an intent? There was that case in the UK which was brought up on the abortion thread previously, where the courts held that if the injury did not result from a from a crime of violence, it was not illegal; I would think a similar proposition in Ireland would fall on the notion that alchohol and drug abuse are not assaults unless they are undertaken with an intent to cause harm to a person (in this case the foetus).

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I got that; I replied to it pointing out you didn't need to quote my post at all, since your 'reply' had nothing to do with it.

I think it's difficult to see what relationship it has to an argument for when anything ought to be afforded any rights? She obviously hasn't offered any such argument, and your speculative extrapolation from her piece doesn't seem to either?
I don't think anyone has a (de facto or de jure) right to die in a hospice, whether they or born or unborn, so that seems a bit of a non starter; certainly she hasn't offered that opinion for either so I think you're creating an argument that isn't there to be honest.

Lol -

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Lol -

Ehh... ok?

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

you didn't need to engage with my question at all, since it wasn't about the foetus?

Well done. Now you are getting it. That's what I said. I engaged with and answered everything on the topic. Anything that was not about what I was talking about, or was off topic, I did not.

Absolam wrote: »

If you feel like withdrawing now, I obviously understand.

I have withdrawn nothing. My point still stands. No one has offered me a single argument for affording rights to a fetus. Therefore I have no issue with abortion of a fetus.

Absolam wrote: »

Actually you didn't

Actually I did. Again that you do not like the answer, or understand it, does not mean none was given. And I linked to the post where I did. If you need things repeated to you multiple times before you get them, I am happy to do so.

Again: The concept of rights is one I link to conscious sentient entities. Entities that not only lack those attributes but also have not even formed the faculties for producing them are not ones to which I see any basis for assigning rights. Nor has anyone on this thread shown any, least of all you.

I see no more reason to be concerned with the rights of a fetus than I do for a rock or a table leg. Nor have I been shown any.

Absolam wrote: »

Do you mean they're simply not a topic that you're comfortable discussing?

No, I mean what I said I mean. Which is that this is a topic about abortion and I will be discussing that. If you want to talk about comatose octogenarians or anything else similar to that, you can do it on your own time. Not mine. As I will not be derailing the topic even if you want to.

Absolam wrote: »

Since we've gotten past that, maybe you'll fancy engaging with the broader discussion now?

I do not need to be admonished on engaging with the topic by someone intent on derailing it. My point on the topic is clear. I have repeated it multiple times. And it has not been rebutted.

Cabaal

"Pro-Life" TD performance



Not looking good for them, spouting mainly about pro-life clearly doesn't make people want to vote for you....and rightly so!

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well done. Now you are getting it. That's what I said. I engaged with and answered everything on the topic. Anything that was not about what I was talking about, or was off topic, I did not.

Well... no. The topic I introduced was the question I asked; the one you started to answer but then declined to discuss. I'm getting that you think there may be another topic, though I'm not too sure what it is.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have withdrawn nothing. My point still stands. No one has offered me a single argument for affording rights to a fetus. Therefore I have no issue with abortion of a fetus.

I think you misunderstand. I wasn't saying that you withdrew anything, I said if you feel like withdrawing now, I obviously understand. Withdrawing, that is, from the discussion of the topic I introduced that you've been replying to telling me you don't want to discuss it. I have though, offered a single argument for affording rights to a foetus, you just seem to keep missing it every time I point it out.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually I did. Again that you do not like the answer, or understand it, does not mean none was given. And I linked to the post where I did. If you need things repeated to you multiple times before you get them, I am happy to do so.

Rather than linking, I'll quote what you said, in full. Would you mind bolding the part of what you said which causes you to exclude a foetus from the possibility of having rights that you afford to other things?
"My point is I see no reason for affording a fetus rights. Arguments I do see for affording other things rights are not relevant to that point, or this thread.
Suffice to say however I consider Rights to be very heavily and proportionately connected with things like sentience and consciousness. An attribute a fetus not only seemingly lacks, but lacks the structures even required to produce it in the first place."
You see, I can see where you say you see no reason for affording a fetus rights, but I can't see where you say what causes you to exclude a foetus from the possibility of having rights that you do afford to other things. It's not that i don't like it, I just can't see it to tell you whether I like it or not?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again: The concept of rights is one I link to conscious sentient entities. Entities that not only lack those attributes but also have not even formed the faculties for producing them are not ones to which I see any basis for assigning rights. Nor has anyone on this thread shown any, least of all you.

Again, which rights and in what way are they heavily and proportionately connected with things like sentience and consciousness? For instance; having established that a foetus is not yet sentient or currently conscious you believe it ought not to have a right to life (if I take you up correctly), does it then follow that an octogenarian (or accident victim) no longer conscious and/or not displaying signs of sentience ought not to have a right to life either?
Should a right to marry (for instance) should have some other qualification?
What about a right to vote? Or own property, or be emancipated?
I have, by the way, shown one; I mentioned it earlier. I continue to find the 'least of all you' terribly cruel and quite unnecessary, in case you're wondering. I suspect you're trying to be deliberately demeaning, and that's a rather mean thing to do.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see no more reason to be concerned with the rights of a fetus than I do for a rock or a table leg. Nor have I been shown any.

Hmm.. I would suggest that you wouldn't be posting on a thread about abortion in Ireland if you didn't have at least some passing interest in them though, would you? After all, the thread wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the (one particular) right of a foetus.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No, I mean what I said I mean. Which is that this is a topic about abortion and I will be discussing that. If you want to talk about comatose octogenarians or anything else similar to that, you can do it on your own time. Not mine. As I will not be derailing the topic even if you want to.

Are you sticking to the medical specifics of the mechanics, or diverging at all into the rationale of why we generally don't permit them? Because if it's the latter I think the reasoning is likely to come up, and the reasoning heavily involves rights conferred by the State, and those rights can also be conferred on comatose octogenarians so it may be those rails don't necessarily go exactly where you want them to.......

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not need to be admonished on engaging with the topic by someone intent on derailing it. My point on the topic is clear. I have repeated it multiple times. And it has not been rebutted.

I'm certainly not admonishing you; I'm inviting you to join a broader discussion than the one you think you're having. Nor am I derailing the topic I introduced, and I think most of the topics that come up tend to be germane (by and large with some occasional exceptions) to the title of the thread. If they're not, we're all free to not participate, or report them, I'm sure

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

Well... no. The topic I introduced

What topics you introduce have nothing to do with me. My point was made, it is clear, it has not been rebutted or addressed, and it stands, and it is based on the topic of the thread, not topics from your head.

Again: The topic is about abortion, and given no one, least of all you, has established any coherent reason to afford a fetus human rights, I see no argument against abortion. That is my entire point.

Absolam wrote: »

Withdrawing, that is, from the discussion of the topic I introduced

I am here to discuss my point and the thread topic, not your topics. The topic is abortion. I have given my reason for having no issue with abortion. I have withdrawn from nothing nor am I planning to. A refusal to enter off topic conversation is not the same as withdrawing from it.

Absolam wrote: »

causes you to exclude a foetus from the possibility of having rights that you afford to other things?

I have multiple times now explained why I do not think we should afford them rights. If you want to ignore the answer, fine, but that does not mean I never gave it.

Absolam wrote: »

does it then follow that an octogenarian

I repeat: I am here to discuss the fetus and abortion. If you want to go off on some off topic rant about comatose old people, marriage laws, property laws, or voting rights do it on your own time, not mine as I will simply be ignoring the off topic blocks of your posts.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What topics you introduce have nothing to do with me. My point was made, it is clear, it has not been rebutted or addressed, and it stands, and it is based on the topic of the thread, not topics from your head.

Of course they don't; though in fairness you chose to reply, no one forced you. Your point, such as it is, stands; you see no reason for affording a fetus rights. Nor will you, it seems.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again: The topic is about abortion, and given no one, least of all you, has established any coherent reason to afford a fetus human rights, I see no argument against abortion. That is my entire point.

Well, I did offer a proposal, but you seem to have missed it. Frequently.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am here to discuss my point and the thread topic, not your topics. The topic is abortion. I have given my reason for having no issue with abortion. I have withdrawn from nothing nor am I planning to. A refusal to enter off topic conversation is not the same as withdrawing from it.

So, you're not here to discuss my topics, or you're not planning on withdrawing from discussing the topic I introduced (the one you answered me on)? That sounds a little conflicted?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have multiple times now explained why I do not think we should afford them rights. If you want to ignore the answer, fine, but that does not mean I never gave it.

In fairness that would be the answer to 'why do you think we should not afford them rights' which really isn't the question I was asking you, is it? Naughty! I'm still more than happy to hear the answer to the question I did ask; what causes you to exclude a foetus from the possibility of having rights that you afford to other things?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I repeat: I am here to discuss the fetus and abortion. If you want to go off on some off topic rant about comatose old people, marriage laws, property laws, or voting rights do it on your own time, not mine as I will simply be ignoring the off topic blocks of your posts.

So to be clear (more as a matter of curiosity than anything); is the topic of a right to life something you consider to be on or off topic? Rant is a bit mean as well by the way; I was asking questions rather than forcefully declaiming my position in a 'I'll brook no further debate or deviation' kind of way....

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

you see no reason for affording a fetus rights. Nor will you, it seems.

That is my position. As for what I "will" do in the future, there is no "seems". If someone can present an actual argument for affording rights to a fetus, I will change my position as I always do. No one has, least of all you.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I did offer a proposal, but you seem to have missed it. Frequently.

I have not missed anything. There is no argument there in the link you offer.

Certainly none that addresses my position that no one has offered a coherent argument as to why we should be assigning rights to something that not only is not conscious or sentient but also lacks even the basic faculties for producing it.

There has not been an argument, least of all from you, to show any moral or ethical concerns for a fetus compared to, say, the leg of a table or a rock. They both have EXACTLY the same capacity of sentience and consciousness it seems.

Absolam wrote: »

So, you're not here to discuss my topics, or you're not planning on withdrawing from discussing the topic I introduced (the one you answered me on)? That sounds a little conflicted?

I am not sure what part of basic english is eluding you here as all conflict appears to exist solely in your fantasy land.

I am here to discuss abortion and the point I made on it. I am not here to enter into (and I can not withdraw from what I have not entered so your withdraw nonsense is patently tosh) discussion on your off topic diatribes and rants about geriatrics and marriage laws and what you personally find "mean" or not.

Absolam wrote: »

which really isn't the question I was asking you, is it? Naughty!

I repeat, you have the answer. If you do not like it, or want to ignore it, that is on you not on me. It certainly does not mean I have not given one as you are so desperate to pretend.

Absolam wrote: »

is the topic of a right to life something you consider to be on or off topic?

If you have an actual coherent argument for affording a right to life to a fetus, then by all means proceed. Empty subjective nonsense along the lines of "Well it seems to make sense, so lets do it" is not that coherent, and is even less so an argument, and is about all one can distill from the post you keep pretending I have "missed" when in fact the answer I have given so far directly address it. And your position in that is then rendered worse than incoherent by talking about something that is not conscious or sentient "Making use of" those rights. How can a non-sentient or non-conscious anything "Make use of" anything? At least TRY to make sense just once.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is my position. As for what I "will" do in the future, there is no "seems". If someone can present an actual argument for affording rights to a fetus, I will change my position as I always do. No one has, least of all you.

There's that least again But I look forward to discussing my proposal with you all the same!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have not missed anything. There is no argument there in the link you offer. Certainly none that addresses my position that no one has offered a coherent argument as to why we should be assigning rights to something that not only is not conscious or sentient but also lacks even the basic faculties for producing it.

Dear me, it does seem things go rather astray with you and links! Here you go, reproduced in full for your edification; I hope you'll accept my assurances that it's the exact same (no naughty changes!) as the post I originally wrote. And linked. And referred to.
We definitely do appear to choose to afford rights to individuals as they reach points in their lives that we associate with increasing autonomy, up to the right to own property, vote, marry etc, and we have obviously varied those points through history and in different cultures. Which makes it seem to me that we afford rights at the approximate stage of development that we feel as a society that they might most reasonably begin to be exercised in a manner we consider proper.
So, marriage at 12 has become marriage at 16.
Franchise has gone from males over 21 owning property to all at the age of 18.
So, I end up answering robdonns question before I give nozzferrahhtoo the opportunity (apologies nozzferrahhtoo); it seems to me we afford people rights not based on their personal stage of development, but at an approximate point to where our society feels they can best make use of them; the argument for affording a foetus a right to life is the same as the argument for affording a 16 year old a right to marry; that we as a society feel it is an appropriate time for them to be able to make use of that right.
And like all other rights, we can change our minds about when or if we afford those rights to anyone.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There has not been an argument, least of all from you, to show any moral or ethical concerns for a fetus compared to, say, the leg of a table or a rock. They both have EXACTLY the same capacity of sentience and consciousness it seems.

Gosh, least again! I'm in floods of tears here... but anyway, why do you think there ought to be an argument to show any moral or ethical concerns for a fetus compared to the leg of a table or a rock? We know (well, I reckon most of us know) it's not the leg of a table or a rock. We know it's not a cow, or a chicken, or a dolphin. We make ethical and moral distinctions with regards to rocks and plants and animals all the time without measuring them against each other; is there a particular reason we should have a comparison in this case? And why specifically the leg of a table or a rock rather than, say, a child and an adult? Or if we must step outside species (for whatever reason), a monkey and a dog?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure what part of basic english is eluding you here as all conflict appears to exist solely in your fantasy land.

Oh, I'm sure if it was only basic english you'd be able to work it out. You are, in all fairness, engaged with my point; you answered what I posted and continue to reply. But I'm sure you'll work your conflict out at least to your own satisfaction.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am here to discuss abortion and the point I made on it. I am not here to enter into (and I can not withdraw from what I have not entered so your withdraw nonsense is patently tosh) discussion on your off topic diatribes and rants about geriatrics and marriage laws and what you personally find "mean" or not.

Tosh, diatribes and rants? Wow, and there I was thinking I'd asked questions. That's me told! I shall update my dictionary accordingly. And don't worry, I don't expect you to discuss what I find 'mean', I just thought it worthwhile to know how you react when you know you're hurting someone else.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I repeat, you have the answer. If you do not like it, or want to ignore it, that is on you not on me. It certainly does not mean I have not given one as you are so desperate to pretend.

You do keep repeating that, don't you? Though in fairness you occasionally releive the boredom by pretending it's a different question. But for all those times you repeated you never once managed to actually write the answer down. Isn't that ever so odd?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you have an actual coherent argument for affording a right to life to a fetus, then by all means proceed. Empty subjective nonsense along the lines of "Well it seems to make sense, so lets do it" is not that coherent, and is even less so an argument, and is about all one can distill from the post you keep pretending I have "missed" when in fact the answer I have given so far directly address it.

Well, I didn't actually say "Well it seems to make sense, so lets do it", did I? Unlike yourself, I'm quite happy to once again (for the third time?) write down what I did say, if you need me too? But once you've had a good look, I'm happy to discuss anything I've actually written with you, if you like? It would almost certainly be more fruitful than trying to discuss something you think is along the lines of what I wrote, but isn't actually what either of us was talking about.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And your position in that is then rendered worse than incoherent by talking about something that is not conscious or sentient "Making use of" those rights. How can a non-sentient or non-conscious anything "Make use of" anything? At least TRY to make sense just once.

Oh! I can answer that one! The State is obliged to protect and vinidicate that right; it does so by passing legislation prohibiting the destruction of the unborn life. The unborn best makes use of ( I did say 'where our society feels they can best make use of them' by the way) that right by not being destroyed, where it otherwise would have been destroyed.
See, we have a discussion going! Though the incoherent jibe was a bit mean too... especially since you found it sufficiently coherent to be able to reply. Ho hum.

Anyways, since we're having a discussion I did ask you a few questions which it would be great if you could just go ahead and answer

robindch

Mod:

Absolam wrote: »

I'm certainly not admonishing you; I'm inviting you to join a broader discussion than the one you think you're having.

That's not really how discussion works, Absolam. People will discuss what they want to discuss and indulging yourself in endless off-topic meanderings serves only to annoy everybody else.

FYI, the moderator team have taken a fairly lenient line so far on these meanderings, but if they persist, the line will be tightened considerably.

Stay on topic. Join the discussion. Don't dictate it. Don't meander or waffle or be deliberately obtuse.

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

Dear me, it does seem things go rather astray with you and links!

Except nothing went astray here in the real world. My main point on this thread directly rebuts yours, and my previous post directly addressed it too. The only thing going astray therefore is that seemingly if you do not like or understand my points, you pretend they were never made.

Absolam wrote: »

why do you think there ought to be an argument to show any moral or ethical concerns for a fetus compared to the leg of a table or a rock?

Do keep up, this is a thread about abortion, which directly relates to the "rights" a fetus does, or does not, have. So if someone wants to argue against abortion on moral or ethical grounds, then they would have to show there is any basis for us to have moral or ethical concerns for a fetus. No one, least of all you, has done this. And that is all my point is whether you understand it, ignore it, or not.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure you'll work your conflict out at least to your own satisfaction.

There is no conflict to work out, outside the realm of your fantasy land.

Absolam wrote: »

But for all those times you repeated you never once managed to actually write the answer down. Isn't that ever so odd?

I repeat you ignoring an answer does not mean it was not given.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I didn't actually say "Well it seems to make sense, so lets do it", did I?

Well, I didn't actually say you did, did I? Observe the phrase "Along the lines of", learn what it means, and maybe even get to use it yourself some day.

Absolam wrote: »

Unlike yourself, I'm quite happy to once again (for the third time?) write down what I did say

Except that "unlike yourself" is blatantly untrue and I have multiple times repeated what I have said on this thread, in the face of your distortions and ignoring points.

Absolam wrote: »

The unborn best makes use of ( I did say 'where our society feels they can best make use of them' by the way) that right by not being destroyed

And I repeat, an entity neither conscious nor sentient can not "make use of" anything. Maybe we as a society can. The fetus certainly can not. So as I said, it would be nice if you at least tried to make some sense with your points instead of spewing out non-points.

Absolam wrote: »

Anyways, since we're having a discussion I did ask you a few questions which it would be great if you could just go ahead and answer

Already did. You pretending otherwise does not alter reality. The only questions I did not answer, and will not answer, are the ones attempting to discuss things this thread is not about. I am sticking to the topic of abortion and of the fetus and its rights (if any) so you can keep your distortions of the reality of what I have said and done to yourself.... I doubt they are fooling anyone except possibly you yourself.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except nothing went astray here in the real world. My main point on this thread directly rebuts yours, and my previous post directly addressed it too. The only thing going astray therefore is that seemingly if you do not like or understand my points, you pretend they were never made.

So, if there was no argument in the link I offered, how then did your main point on the thread rebut mine? Indeed... how did your previous post directly address it too? Something does seem to be astray, and it doesn't appear I am the one pretending points weren't made. Anyway, being cognniscant of Robindchs warning, rather than disappear down yet another 'you said I said' rabbit hole, I'll set my (on topic) points out below. If you feel like trying to rebut them, fine, if not, I don't mind.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Do keep up, this is a thread about abortion, which directly relates to the "rights" a fetus does, or does not, have. So if someone wants to argue against abortion on moral or ethical grounds, then they would have to show there is any basis for us to have moral or ethical concerns for a fetus. No one, least of all you, has done this. And that is all my point is whether you understand it, ignore it, or not.

Again, rather than spiraling down an argument about keeping up with nothing being said, I'll stick to the on topic portion of what you're saying;
We agree this is a thread about abortion.
Can we also agree that the rights a foetus has (and according to some should or should not have) are relevant to the discussion? I wouldn't want to presume (that you agree, I obviously know they are relevant).
So, if someone wants to argue against abortion on moral or ethical grounds, they might provide moral or ethical arguments against it, or simply look for the moral or ethical argument for it; either suffices to my mind. Would you agree with that, or do you perceive some obligation that the argument can only be against abortion and there is no need for an argument for it?

Thence, to the point you made (demonstrating that the above was not meandering), neither requires that there ought to be an argument to show any moral or ethical concerns for a fetus compared to the leg of a table or a rock which is why I asked you why there ought to be. If you don't think the 'why' is irrelevant to the topic, can you justify the need for such an argument?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is no conflict to work out, outside the realm of your fantasy land. I repeat you ignoring an answer does not mean it was not given.

OK, rather than repeat my reply again perpetuating the ad nauseum nonsense, which is both tedious and becoming obtuse, let's try a different tack.
If you had never expressed an opinion on why you do not think that we should afford a foetus rights (or even if you had), would you flatly exclude a foetus from the possibility of having rights that you afford to other things, and if so, on what basis? Bearing in mind that you have specified that you agree the topic of the thread directly relates to the "rights" a fetus does, or does not, have.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well, I didn't actually say you did, did I? Observe the phrase "Along the lines of", learn what it means, and maybe even get to use it yourself some day. Except that "unlike yourself" is blatantly untrue and I have multiple times repeated what I have said on this thread, in the face of your distortions and ignoring points.

I think I'll leave that aside as the 'meandering, waffling, and 'deliberate obtuseness' (with the addition of your usual measure of attempted condescension) that's upsetting Robindch, so rather than continue to engage with it I think I'll just move on with the actual discussion, to be honest.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I repeat, an entity neither conscious nor sentient can not "make use of" anything. Maybe we as a society can. The fetus certainly can not. So as I said, it would be nice if you at least tried to make some sense with your points instead of spewing out non-points.

Well, if it's only the words 'make use of' that vexes you, I'm more than happy to substitute 'benefit from' or something similar. So rather than 'spewing non-points' let me put the following to you;

It seem to me that we afford rights at the approximate stage of development that we feel as a society that they might most reasonably begin to be exercised in a manner we consider proper; the affording of rights to a person is delayed only by the necessity of those rights being appropriately exercisable, which includes the practicability of the State defending, vindicating and prosecuting such rights. It seems to me we afford people rights not based on their personal stage of development, but at an approximate point to where our society feels they can best benefit from them; the argument for affording a foetus a right to life is the same as the argument for affording a 16 year old a right to marry; that we as a society feel it is an appropriate time for them to be able to benefit from that right. If a foetus could reasonably benefit from the right to marry (and of course if that right could practicably be applied) there would be no reason not to afford that right, or similarly any other, to it.

So now, there you have a single coherent argument for affording a fetus any rights at all before certain stages of development, despite it neither being conscious or sentient at the time. It comes with the added bonus of justifying a person at other points in their development continuing to have the same rights, despite being neither conscious or sentient at the time.
Feel free to discuss the topic, or how any point you choose to raise relates to it. Or not; I'm certainly not trying to dictate the discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Already did. You pretending otherwise does not alter reality. The only questions I did not answer, and will not answer, are the ones attempting to discuss things this thread is not about. I am sticking to the topic of abortion and of the fetus and its rights (if any) so you can keep your distortions of the reality of what I have said and done to yourself.... I doubt they are fooling anyone except possibly you yourself.

I'll wrap that up in the same bag of obtuseness above and leave it with you; you know yourself where you're dodging but it's fair to say discussing it adds nothing to the topic at hand, so I can let it slide.