Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Dan_Solo

alaimacerc wrote: »

But it seems you've conceded the "right to travel to have an abortion" point, albeit after much wholly unnecessary protestation.

I didn't actually. You've put something in quotes which doesn't exist in the amendment. This is of course an eventuality of the wording, but it isn't actually what the wording states, or indeed has to.

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

So doctors who perform abortions are worse than rapists?

I woudn't know; I think I'd like to know a little more about the people before I leap to any judgements about them.
I'd agree that a person who kills another person does a worse thing than a person who rapes another person though; which, to forestall the leap, does not mean that raping a person is not a bad thing.

Dan_Solo

Cabaal wrote: »

I think you'll find there has been a change,
Women travels to UK, no "unborn" returns to Ireland.

So "murder" is ok as long as we export it eh?
:rolleyes:

So, as I said, no change of status of the unborn within Ireland? But if you say something completely different I guess you are right. Well done on that.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Amusing, but I don't Cabaal was asking if they want to lobby for laws, he was telling them they should, which goes a little further than leading the witness...

No, exact same prohibition/exception. "I put it to you that..."

Well with any luck the conscience of our elected representatives will lead them to represent the views of those who elect them.

That's a little different from your first formulation, however, which was much more suggestive of "not while they can get away with doing otherwise".

Let's say 70% of the population wants reform or abolition of the 8th. (Which would be about the case, if opinion-polling is accurate in the first place, and secondly that people are even a little bit consistent about this, if they wish for a dispensation inconsistent with the present reading of the 8th.) But 70% of the electorate aren't going to be voting on just that. They'll be voting on keeping out the Shinners/the nice budget FG just gave me/the even better budget FF promised me/robust capitalism and grand-sounding "political reform", but actually meaning it this time, not like those spoofers that promised that exact thing last time/whatever you're having yourself.

Dan_Solo

Daith wrote: »

The rights of the unborn is equal to the rights of the mother

Notwithstanding the above this does stop the mother travelling to another country where the rights of the unborn are not equal.

Nothing odd here...

But why is that contradictory? "Our laws don't apply there" seems pretty easy to grasp?

alaimacerc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I didn't actually. You've put something in quotes which doesn't exist in the amendment. This is of course an eventuality of the wording, but it isn't actually what the wording states, or indeed has to.

But no-one is claiming 40.3.3.2 says that in those words, any more than anyone says that 40.3.3.1 is so indelicate and tactless as to explicitly say "no abortions". That's the clear effect and expressed intent all the same. In both cases.

Dan_Solo

alaimacerc wrote: »

Let's say 70% of the population wants reform or abolition of the 8th. (Which would be about the case, if opinion-polling is accurate in the first place, and secondly that people are even a little bit consistent about this, if they wish for a dispensation inconsistent with the present reading of the 8th.)

Well, reform and abolition are rather different things here. Adding rape/health etc. to the list of allowed abortions only would shut out on demand for a good 30 years more.

alaimacerc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"Our laws don't apply there" seems pretty easy to grasp?

And wrong. As I already pointed out.

Here, have a link.

Dan_Solo

alaimacerc wrote: »

But no-one is claiming 40.3.3.2 says that in those words, any more than anyone says that 40.3.3.1 is so indelicate and tactless as to explicitly say "no abortions". That's the clear effect and expressed intent all the same. In both cases.

As it is an inevitable eventuality, there was no need to specifically state it, which they did not do.
Now, how does this change the status of the unborn within the state where Irish law applies? It doesn't.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, exact same prohibition/exception. "I put it to you that..."

I put it to you that you should to this, since you're showing no sign you will? Objection your honour! Counsel is testifying.

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's a little different from your first formulation, however, which was much more suggestive of "not while they can get away with doing otherwise".

Well, I was trying to include your own rather extravagant wording, though my first formulation was intended to be suggestive of the notion that politicians will do what it takes to continue being politicians rather than your own notion.
But in short; if enough people demonstrate to their TDs that they want a referendum and they won't re-elect them unless they support the notion, Tds will pay attention. If their electorate is more interested in demonstrating they're interested in keeping out the Shinners/the nice budget FG just gave me/the even better budget FF promised me/robust capitalism and grand-sounding "political reform", but actually meaning it this time, not like those spoofers that promised that exact thing last time/whatever you're having yourself, they'll pay attention to that. That's politics for you....

alaimacerc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well, reform and abolition are rather different things here. Adding rape/health etc. to the list of allowed abortions only would shut out on demand for a good 30 years more.

They are indeed different. But the same people will be filibustering (and just plain blustering) on both. "Not the right time or the right climate for such a debate", and other such Sherlockisms.

Not sure how you just "add to the list of allowed abortions", though. There being no such "list" in the text of the constitution. Anyone proposing to "tweak" the wording and get it just right this time is bound to be met with considerable skepticism.

The "conservative reform" wing of FG might just instead say "abolish the 8th entirely, but keep the PoLDPA and our 'restrictive abortion regime' essentially as-is". In that context you can simply "add to the list", much more straightforwardly.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I woudn't know; I think I'd like to know a little more about the people before I leap to any judgements about them.
I'd agree that a person who kills another person does a worse thing than a person who rapes another person though; which, to forestall the leap, does not mean that raping a person is not a bad thing.

What of a person who kills a fetus specifically?

In your opinion killing a fetus [fetus specifically - (not simply the general 'another person')] worse than rape?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Amusing, but I don't Cabaal was asking if they want to lobby for laws, he was telling them they should, which goes a little further than leading the witness...
Well with any luck the conscience of our elected representatives will lead them to represent the views of those who elect them. Since logically, their future as politicians should depend on their electorate. If their electorate is consistent, I suppose.

I think they should lobby for laws to stop women traveling for abortions because it'll completely undermine their entire campaign...but then thats the reason why they won't lobby.

If they got their way we'd end up with back street abortions and women being arrested and charged for attempting to travel.

This would finally break the camels back and the 8th would have to then change as they're be public outcry.....I know this, you know this and Youth Defense & Co know this.

Thats why they won't lobby,

They are content with allowing Ireland to export its problem, whilst all the time claiming they look after fetuses and Ireland is abortion free. Its really rather pathetic.
:rolleyes:

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

I think they should lobby for laws to stop women traveling for abortions because it'll completely undermine their entire campaign...but then thats the reason why they won't lobby.

Yes it's a notable argument from those who are pro-abortion; those who are anti-abortion are afraid to offer the arguments we say they should offer because it would make them look silly. Which is pretty... silly.

Cabaal wrote: »

If they got their way we'd end up with back street abortions and women being arrested and charged for attempting to travel. This would finally break the camels back and the 8th would have to then change as they're be public outcry.....I know this, you know this and Youth Defense & Co know this.

You mean if they got your way... since it's not an argument they're putting forward?

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats why they won't lobby, They are content with allowing Ireland to export its problem, whilst all the time claiming they look after fetuses and Ireland is abortion free. Its really rather pathetic.:rolleyes:

Or, they won't lobby because it's your argument, not theirs? In fairness, begrudging the fact that they won't put forward the argument you've constructed for them in order to make them look silly is itself fairly pathetic....

robindch

A pregnant woman in the USA wanted her tubes tied. Her hospital was controlled by catholics who said "Nope".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-pregnant-woman-wanted-her-tubes-tied-her-catholic-hospital-said-no/2015/09/13/bd2038ca-57ef-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

What of a person who kills a fetus specifically?
In your opinion killing a fetus [fetus specifically - (not simply the general 'another person')] worse than rape?

In my opinion killing a foetus specifically is the same as killing any other person specifically; killing any person is worse than raping any person.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Oddly, I got the idea that Kylith wasn't proposing that I should actually go out out and do one thing or the other.
My objection was to the notion that being presented with a choice between the two options, that I would choose either one.

But you worded it in such a way to suggest that there was something wrong with her for even suggesting it...

Absolam wrote: »

And that's the thing; I mustn't. I can choose not to participate, whether it's a real choice, or a hypothetical choice.

Quite. The 'you must choose one' assumes a willingness to actually engage in the process rather than avoid engaging with the process at all costs. Your response is exactly what I, and I am sure everyone else, thought it would be.

Absolam wrote: »

I think in this case I'm going to wrest the machine gun from the nearest guard, deftly execute the evil commandant whilst quipping merrily in a 1940s heroic style in order to distract the combatants until my doughty family and friends overpower them, and get everyone back to blighty in time for tea and buns. Along the way we'll discover the trauma has excised the memory of rape from the mind of the 12 year old on the left and she has a vague but pleasantly hopeful notion that she is about to be the mother of a new religion of world peace, whilst the girl on the right is contemplating a lucrative career in the construction of alternative bed furniture.

Yeah, whatever. Whilst the narrative uses slightly more imagination this is just typical of your fairly standard avoidance of actually answering anything.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm happy to agree that you can construct a novel hypothetical in which you do your utmost to minimise the apparent effect of killing a foetus compared to the effect of raping a child, for instance by presenting it as simply administering a tablet rather than perhaps cutting the child (desperate to create something positive from her horrific rape by becoming the best mother a child could have) open with a blunt rusty blade, and on eventually locating the foetus scooping it out with your fingers, all in all endeavouring to make it appear that killing a foetus is a less heinous act that raping a child.

I thought it most sensible to present this option as it would be most likely to happen. Remember it is a thought experiment designed to get prompt a particular choice in a particular set of circumstances. Having the abortion choice read like something form a Saw movie would kind of defeat the purpose, wouldn't you think?

Absolam wrote: »

Nevertheless, as I said, I think killing someone is worse than raping someone.

Killing your definition of someone that is...

So what are your thoughts on the case a few years ago where the 9 year old rape victim pregnant with twins was given an abortion. Do you think she should have been forced to continue the pregnancy which would undoubtedly have had serious consequences for her health, assuming she even survived?

I guess you will not give a straight answer for this either, which really is getting quite tiresome.

MrP

Bandana boy

Lads there is already a thread for this Abortion discussion
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056990082&page=672

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Or, they won't lobby because it's your argument, not theirs? In fairness, begrudging the fact that they won't put forward the argument you've constructed for them in order to make them look silly is itself fairly pathetic....

Why would I lobby?
I'm all for choice,

They are the people that want rape victims to give birth to rapists baby's, they are the one's that claim every fetus is equal to the mothers life and they celebrate Ireland being abortion free.
:rolleyes:

The end of the day they can claim all they want but they are just happy to export Ireland's problems rather then deal with them in Ireland, utterly pathetic.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

A pregnant woman in the USA wanted her tubes tied. Her hospital was controlled by catholics who said "Nope".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-pregnant-woman-wanted-her-tubes-tied-her-catholic-hospital-said-no/2015/09/13/bd2038ca-57ef-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html

Course we're not much better, Irish hospital refused to do a certain type of cancer treatment for women because they'd have to take birth control...all on religious grounds.
Scary this women's reason for doing this was to increase her chances of living,

The catholic church sure does love to hate women,

Hotblack Desiato

Approaching 10,100 posts :eek:

alaimacerc

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Approaching 10,100 posts :eek:

Oh dear. If we're about to get Megathreaded, does that mean post quality will trend towards that of the "Irish Water" and "Sinn Fein" same?

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Yes it's a notable argument from those who are pro-abortion; those who are anti-abortion are afraid to offer the arguments we say they should offer because it would make them look silly. Which is pretty... silly.

It's a pretty straightfoward exercise in case analysis. If someone is very keen on the criminalisation of abortion, it's reasonable to ask how they feel about the rather notable profusion of "outsourcing" of Irish abortions. Especially as the law on the topic has swung far enough from the "theocratic" to the "muddled if not outright hypocritical" that not only must there be no law of extraterritorial or inchoate offences on the subject, the constitution has to go out of its way to preclude such. You might once have been surprised that people find this remarkable, but I'd have thought you'd had a good while to get used to it by now.

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

But you worded it in such a way to suggest that there was something wrong with her for even suggesting it...

I don't think so; Kyliths question was worded in such as way as to suggest (well.. state in fact, not suggest) that it was inhuman to consider killing someone as worse than raping someone. My reply was not that there was anything wrong with suggesting it, but that someone who is prepared to choose to either perform an abortion at 12 weeks or rape a 12 year old is closer to inhuman than someone who won't.

MrPudding wrote: »

Quite. The 'you must choose one' assumes a willingness to actually engage in the process rather than avoid engaging with the process at all costs. Your response is exactly what I, and I am sure everyone else, thought it would be.

Well, it assumes a willingness to engage with your hypothetical certainly... I'm not so sure about 'the process'. I don't recall actually offering to entertain your fantasies, but if you already thought I wasn't going to, you probably simply shouldn't have made the effort?

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, whatever. Whilst the narrative uses slightly more imagination this is just typical of your fairly standard avoidance of actually answering anything.

That's a rather churlish response to my effort to help your story along. As for actually answering anything... meh (in counter to your 'whatever'). You can review my posts anytime you like.

MrPudding wrote: »

I thought it most sensible to present this option as it would be most likely to happen. Remember it is a thought experiment designed to get prompt a particular choice in a particular set of circumstances. Having the abortion choice read like something form a Saw movie would kind of defeat the purpose, wouldn't you think?

I'm fairly sure the scenario you described is not terribly likely to happen to me. I'm fairly sure it's not likely to happen to you or anyone you or I know, either. If I'm mistaken, I'll let you know when it happens.

MrPudding wrote: »

Killing your definition of someone that is...

To be fair (and notwithstanding your notions of standard avoidance of actually answering anything) I said early on that those who advocate liberalising Paraguays abortion regime don't consider abortion to be killing anyone; my inclination is to think that many in Paraguay probably do, hence the existing legislation.

MrPudding wrote: »

So what are your thoughts on the case a few years ago where the 9 year old rape victim pregnant with twins was given an abortion. Do you think she should have been forced to continue the pregnancy which would undoubtedly have had serious consequences for her health, assuming she even survived?

I think had her life not been at risk her children should not have been aborted. I think you probably know that already, but to save you the effort of salaciously throwing up lots of instances where someone is suffering truly dreadful circumstances and our hearts break for their various plights; I don't think any dreadful circumstance justifies the taking of another persons life (unless that person has deliberately chosen to cause that dreadful circumstance, which is not a provisio likely to apply to a foetus).

MrPudding wrote: »

I guess you will not give a straight answer for this either, which really is getting quite tiresome.

In fairness, I never said I was here to be interrogated. I'm altogether happy to participate in the discussion, but please don't imagine I feel in some way obligated to leap through hypothetical hoops just so you can feel you've made some point.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Why would I lobby? I'm all for choice,

Why would they lobby? They've never suggested they're interested in doing so.

Cabaal wrote: »

They are the people that want rape victims to give birth to rapists baby's, they are the one's that claim every fetus is equal to the mothers life and they celebrate Ireland being abortion free. :rolleyes:

Sooo.... not their idea still?

Cabaal wrote: »

The end of the day they can claim all they want but they are just happy to export Ireland's problems rather then deal with them in Ireland, utterly pathetic.

And... still not their idea?

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's a pretty straightfoward exercise in case analysis. If someone is very keen on the criminalisation of abortion, it's reasonable to ask how they feel about the rather notable profusion of "outsourcing" of Irish abortions.

Notwithstanding the notions of someones who are 'very keen on the criminalisation of abortion' (as opposed to someones who are very keen on preserving the lives of others) I did ask if anyone was aware of these organisations offering this argument; but the general opinion seems to be they're not. That they're not because they're afraid they won't be entertained seems rather unlikely; they're aware they're equally unlikely to be entertained on other subjects but they proceed anyway. That they're not because they realise it's ridiculous seems equally unlikely; if they realise it's ridiculous they wouldn't want to offer the argument in the first place. Because they'd find it to be a ridiculous argument.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Especially as the law on the topic has swung far enough from the "theocratic" to the "muddled if not outright hypocritical" that not only must there be no law of extraterritorial or inchoate offences on the subject, the constitution has to go out of its way to preclude such. You might once have been surprised that people find this remarkable, but I'd have thought you'd had a good while to get used to it by now.

Well, I'm not so sure the law has really swung at all; we've updated the Constitution to ensure one persons right to life can't infringe another's right to travel, and that was a fairly pragmatic amendment.
There can be no doubt that asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction to attempt to extend the States Constitutional obligation beyond the borders of the State ( a dubious notion itself, there's no basis for thinking that the State is obliged by the Constitution to defend and vindicate the right to life of every unborn person in the world) would result in impracticable legislation; ditto the notion of determining inchoate offenses. Perhaps if one day the rest of Europe takes the same view of abortion as it does of murder a workable framework could be created, but it doesn't.

No, what I find remarkable is the fact that those who are pro-choice are still putting forward nonsensical arguments on behalf of those who are pro-life, and then attempting to deride their lack of commitment in following through on the nonsense.

Dan_Solo

alaimacerc wrote: »

And wrong. As I already pointed out.

Here, have a link.

The problem with your link is that it doesn't mention anything that's said in the amendment. The amendment doesn't say anything at all about exemption from prosecution for an extraterritorial abortion. It says you have freedom to travel, not that you are exempt from prosecution if you do.
Not that I can find any record of an extraterrorial abortion prosecution in Ireland anyway, which I presume is why they either forgot or didn't bother to mention it at all in the amendment (but yes, definitely should have if that's what they meant).

kylith

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think so; Kyliths question was worded in such as way as to suggest (well.. state in fact, not suggest) that it was inhuman to consider killing someone as worse than raping someone. My reply was not that there was anything wrong with suggesting it, but that someone who is prepared to choose to either perform an abortion at 12 weeks or rape a 12 year old is closer to inhuman than someone who won't.

My question was worded to suggest that a foetus at 12 weeks gestation, which does not have a functioning brain, nervous system, eyes, ears, lungs, or anything that would be necessary to consider it a 'person' other than human DNA is not a person. And also worded to suggest that terminating said brainless, nerveless, earless, eyeless, lungless foetus, is nowhere near as bad as raping an actual, living, functioning, independently viable human female with a brain, thoughts, emotions, and experiences.

That fact that you can equate a human female with a foetus is shocking to me. As is the fact that someone could ever consider the termination of an insensible foetus as worse than the brutal rape of a woman.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

There can be no doubt that asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction to attempt to extend the States Constitutional obligation beyond the borders of the State ( a dubious notion itself, there's no basis for thinking that the State is obliged by the Constitution to defend and vindicate the right to life of every unborn person in the world)

It doesn't claim that though, only extraterritorial jurisdiction on Irish citizens. Almost equally unworkable yes, but seldom invoked in any case it appears.

robindch

New thread created, posts moved over. The universe continues, unabated.

.