"New" Abortion Initiative

the_syco

The Corinthian wrote:

By the same logic we should legalize paedophilia on the basis that otherwise we will force paedophiles to leave the country to go to Thailand and other similar destinations...

Paedophiles take advantage, rape, and molester young kids.

Abortion kills them. Simple as. I still think it should be an option.

Also, non-bias infomation should be available to mothers that want to abort.

Finally, if abortion is still not legal, then at least post-abortion counseling, as it can traumatize some women (feelings of emptiness, etc), should be available to them. Some see it as a quick fix, but don't think of how it may effect them mentally.

Victor

the_syco wrote:

Also, non-bias infomation should be available to mothers that want to abort.

Finally, if abortion is still not legal, then at least post-abortion counseling, as it can traumatize some women (feelings of emptiness, etc), should be available to them. Some see it as a quick fix, but don't think of how it may effect them mentally.

All of this is legal, available and subsidised by government.

The Corinthian

the_syco wrote:

Paedophiles take advantage, rape, and molester young kids.

Abortion kills them. Simple as. I still think it should be an option.

You imply that abortion is worse than paedophilia (it’s not unreasonable to assume that murder or killing is worse than rape or molestation), and then suggest that it should be legalised.

Would you care to revise your logic?

fly_agaric

the_syco wrote:

Paedophiles take advantage, rape, and molester young kids.

Abortion kills them. Simple as. I still think it should be an option.

That doesn't make any sense! If legalising abortion was about the rights of women to "kill young kids" that they "own" we wouldn't need to discuss this at all IMO.

The arguments are over where on the embryo-foetus-baby continuum do we draw a line and say <<this is a human life now with certain "rights" and not a collection of cells with no rights at all>>, and how then do we balance the the rights of the mother with those of the unborn child.

Limited abortion with a pretty strict time limit and a restricted set of circumstances would be a good thing - better than having to have people forced to travel to the UK anyway. I have a fear that the initial restrictions would dissolve quickly under lobbying from women's rights groups etc and we would end up with abortion on demand up to very late stages in pregnancy.

The Corinthian

fly_agaric wrote:

The arguments are over where on the embryo-foetus-baby continuum do we draw a line and say <<this is a human life now with certain "rights" and not a collection of cells with no rights at all>>, and how then do we balance the the rights of the mother with those of the unborn child.

Not at all a bad definition of the issue. However, then you go on and jump to:

Limited abortion with a pretty strict time limit and a restricted set of circumstances would be a good thing - better than having to have people forced to travel to the UK anyway.

I assume you didn’t want to bore us with all the logic in-between defining the issue and arriving at your conclusion, or was this simply an opinion or gut feeling?

The problem, as I have observed with this issue, is that people tend to rely upon gut feelings and hearsay alone, possibly because actually attempting to work it out rationally may result in conclusions that would contradict these initial prejudices - be they pro-choice or pro-life.

Alternatively also because people are actually not bright enough to work it out rationally. The older I get, the more I suspect this might be the case.

I have a fear that the initial restrictions would dissolve quickly under lobbying from women's rights groups etc and we would end up with abortion on demand up to very late stages in pregnancy.

Ideologies, be they pro or against abortion, further muddy the issue, I believe.

Hagar

I think if abortion is legalised the woman should be presented with the "not a baby" after the procedure and asked to dispose of it herself.

Since it's "not a baby" nobody should be too traumatised or upset.
If you're in the VHI or BUPA maybe they could supply a black plastic bag.

The angry icon just isn't big enough.

Hydroquinone

catholicireland wrote:

Just another reason why the evils of abortion should stay in england.

What an absolutely facile and ridiculous thing to say; practically every country in Europe has abortion. Women from here choose to go to Britain for abortions because
a) Ireland denies women the same basic human rights as other European countries give their women
a) Britain is our nearest neighbour
b) We speak the same lingo

So what is it? Is everywhere evil except here? Or is it about time we copped on and joined the 21st century?

The Corinthian

Hagar wrote:

Since it's "not a baby" nobody should be too traumatised or upset.

Personally, I’d be a bit upset if someone presented me with my appendix after an appendicectomy. Less said about circumcision the better.

Hydroquinone wrote:

So what is it? Is everywhere evil except here? Or is it about time we copped on and joined the 21st century?

Something is moral because it is legal in numerous countries? Then we should not really consider homosexual unions terribly moral then, by your logic.

Or what exactly is the critical mass of countries where something is legal before you would consider it moral?

Hagar

Slightly off topic.

Irish hospitals can't cope with healing the sick right now, give them the added work of killing the unborn and the whole system will collapse.
Maybe there will just be a long waiting list just like for many other important procedures.

fly_agaric

The Corinthian wrote:

I assume you didn’t want to bore us with all the logic in-between defining the issue and arriving at your conclusion, or was this simply an opinion or gut feeling?

It was simply an opinion. As such, it was based, both on my limited knowledge, application of some logic to it, together with a large component of "gut feelings" as you put it. I don't know how useful logic is here TBH.

I'm not a biologist and am not arrogant enough to think that my pop-science grasp of embryonic and foetal development allows me to draw the line where the foetus should be given human rights.

Even if I was such an expert, how am I to decide who's rights (mother or foetus) take precedence without looking at the ins and outs of a particular case. I'm not a lawyer or a judge either.

Anyway, despite this, I'll try to explain my opinion without boring you to tears.

Firstly, I just don't think it is very grown-up of us to evade the issue of abortion in our law and leave it to the laws of other countries and Irish peoples' ability to travel to sort it all out for us. This is why I said some sort of legislation covering when abortion should be used would be far better than leaving it up to the UK.

AFAIK, the foetus has a hearbeat, looks pretty human, has differentiated organs, and begins to respond reflexively to stimuli from a very early stage (10wks?). This was why I would feel the foetus should be given rights at this stage.

As regards whos rights take precedence that would depend on each case.

If the mother's life is in danger, her safety should be paramount no matter what stage the baby is at. If the pregnancy is the result of rape/incest it could only be aborted IMO before a strict time limit. If it is the result of a family planning error - tough. I really, really want to cry off the whole handicapped and life threatening illness issues. All of the above paragraph is of course opinion based on my gut feelings about things.

The Corinthian wrote:

The problem, as I have observed with this issue, is that people tend to rely upon gut feelings and hearsay alone, possibly because actually attempting to work it out rationally may result in conclusions that would contradict these initial prejudices - be they pro-choice or pro-life. Alternatively also because people are actually not bright enough to work it out rationally. The older I get, the more I suspect this might be the case.

Well, it is a very emotional issue that upsets people and makes it difficult to think rationally. To me at least, it is quite a difficult issue to work through without feelings entering in somewhere.

The Corinthian wrote:

Ideologies, be they pro or against abortion, further muddy the issue, I believe.

Well for extremists on both sides, idealogy is the heart of the issue and they don't care about anything else. The complexities are reduced to characitures to push emotional buttons. Abortion is "murder". Women should have "free choice" etc.

Hydroquinone

The Corinthian wrote:

Something is moral because it is legal in numerous countries? Then we should not really consider homosexual unions terribly moral then, by your logic.

Or what exactly is the critical mass of countries where something is legal before you would consider it moral?

What's legality got to do with morality? Nothing. I didn't mention morality. You're the one who's brought it up.
Gambling and fornication and swearing and drinking and using contraception and smoking outside and all manner of other things I do are legal and maybe someone somewhere thinks they're immoral. Fair enough; doesn't bother me.

Morality is a question for the individual, not the state.

If abortion and homosexual marriage were legal and available in this country, those who had no moral objection could avail themselves, couldn't they? Those who thought them immoral wouldn't be affected. It's not like either would be compulsory.

If you are questioning my morals you needn't bother yourself; I know what they are, I'm happy with them, thanks. But since you're the one who thinks legality and morality are intrinsically linked for some reason; do you think that it's moral for our government to ignore the thousands of women a year who go to a foreign country for a legal abortion?

nesf

Hydroquinone wrote:

Morality is a question for the individual, not the state.

You're ignoring the insatiable human need to force one's morals upon another.

Also, that's a whole different debate.

The Corinthian

fly_agaric wrote:

I'm not a biologist and am not arrogant enough to think that my pop-science grasp of embryonic and foetal development allows me to draw the line where the foetus should be given human rights.

Actually in accepting the principle that it is at any stage of post-conceptual development not human, you have in effect already drawn a line.

AFAIK, the foetus has a hearbeat, looks pretty human, has differentiated organs, and begins to respond reflexively to stimuli from a very early stage (10wks?). This was why I would feel the foetus should be given rights at this stage.

This is what I am questioning - you actually begin by claiming that you’re not qualified to define what and when a foetus is human. Then you already make the assumption that at some stage it must not be. Later you go so far as to set some criteria to it.

Don’t you see some inconsistency in your logic, especially given you accept ignorance?

Hagar wrote:

Irish hospitals can't cope with healing the sick right now, give them the added work of killing the unborn and the whole system will collapse.
Maybe there will just be a long waiting list just like for many other important procedures.

Actually, and still somewhat off topic, no one has considered that even we abortion legally available in the Ireland, that it may sill ultimately be cheaper to get done in the UK under the NHS anyway.

Hydroquinone wrote:

What's legality got to do with morality? Nothing. I didn't mention morality. You're the one who's brought it up.

Not really, you were using the argument that because something is legal (almost) everywhere else in Europe, we should accept it. That in itself is a moral assertion.

Gambling and fornication and swearing and drinking and using contraception and smoking outside and all manner of other things I do are legal and maybe someone somewhere thinks they're immoral. Fair enough; doesn't bother me.

Morality is a question for the individual, not the state.

And if my personal morality allowed me to kill you, then the State should not interfere? And if so, might your above assertion be just a little bit juvenile?

If abortion and homosexual marriage were legal and available in this country, those who had no moral objection could avail themselves, couldn't they? Those who thought them immoral wouldn't be affected. It's not like either would be compulsory.

But it’s not legal, and nether is it in most of the West, let alone the rest of the World. And you specifically cited that abortion’s widespread legality be a reason to follow suit here, so the reverse inevitably follows.

If you are questioning my morals you needn't bother yourself; I know what they are, I'm happy with them, thanks.

I’m not questioning your morality; I’m questioning your logic. Your morality- indeed, if you’re even alive tomorrow - is of little concern to me.

But since you're the one who thinks legality and morality are intrinsically linked for some reason;

As I said, I was questioning the manner you were linking morality and legality - you were suggesting that law should dictate morality, i.e. if it’s legal elsewhere, it can’t be evil.

do you think that it's moral for our government to ignore the thousands of women a year who go to a foreign country for a legal abortion?

Oh, won’t someone think of the children / women / poor / [insert tear-jerking group here]!

nesf wrote:

You're ignoring the insatiable human need to force one's morals upon another.

We call that civilisation

Hydroquinone

The Corinthian wrote:

As I said, I was questioning the manner you were linking morality and legality - you were suggesting that law should dictate morality, i.e. if it’s legal elsewhere, it can’t be evil.

Evil is not a tangible thing; it's a judgement call. catholicireland called abortion evil and I don't see it. That was the point.
You can call me illogical or juvenile all you like; no skin off my nose. But your opinions are undermined a bit when you resort to this faded old cliché, I think.

Oh, won’t someone think of the children / women / poor / [insert tear-jerking group here]!

I'm sure you disagree, but that's what message boarding's all about.

fly_agaric

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually in accepting the principle that it is at any stage of post-conceptual development not human, you have in effect already drawn a line.

Now that I reread that I see I have done that inadvertantly. This makes my point about how its difficult to go beyond "feelings" when discussing this. You obviously believe that any stage of post-conception development should be considered considered human and given certain rights - I would disagree.
Do you have anything to back up your opinion?

The Corinthian wrote:

This is what I am questioning - you actually begin by claiming that you’re not qualified to define what and when a foetus is human. Then you already make the assumption that at some stage it must not be. Later you go so far as to set some criteria to it.

Don’t you see some inconsistency in your logic, especially given you accept ignorance?

As regards the first part I now see the implicit assumpion in my statement about drawing a line. Someone arguing from the opposite side could say that I have made the assumption that the foetus at some stage should be given rights.

I admitted that I am not qualified to draw the line - but I can try (maybe I am arrogant afterall).

Anyway, the reason I went on to try and draw the line in spite of my ignorance was to show how it had led to my opinion on abortion in Ireland (you asked me to explain the reasoning behind my opinion if there was any).

My opinion may be wrong, it may be based on incorrect information and reasoning, but everybody has opinions...

The Corinthian

Hydroquinone wrote:

Evil is not a tangible thing; it's a judgement call.

And what exactly has that little cliché got to do with what I responded to you?

Seriously; you first claimed that something was acceptable here on the basis that it is legal everywhere else - I demonstrated how your reasoning was flawed.

You then claimed that the State had no part in morality - again I pointed out how you hadn’t thought out your own logic.

And now you ignore those rebuttals and respond with some cliché about evil being a judgment call. That’s convenient.

catholicireland called abortion evil and I don't see it. That was the point.

Actually the point was that you made a claim that did not stand up to even cursory examination.

But your opinions are undermined a bit when you resort to this faded old cliché, I think.

Ironically I was simply poking fun at your cliché. You seem to have missed that though.

fly_agaric wrote:

Now that I reread that I see I have done that inadvertantly. This makes my point about how its difficult to go beyond "feelings" when discussing this.

I agree, however difficult does not mean impossible.

You obviously believe that any stage of post-conception development should be considered considered human and given certain rights - I would disagree.

I’ve actually never said that. Indeed, I’ve actually never even come down on being either pro or against abortion.

All I’ve said is that the question of whether the foetus is human or not at any stage of development is clearly open to debate and so in that case terminating something or someone that may be human becomes morally questionable if, and only if, you ascribe all humans equal status, with the right to life as the principle one.

As I suggested, if you demolish a building on the basis that it’s probably empty, but there is still a significant chance that it’s not, your action becomes morally questionable. And the reality is that the status of the foetus is by no means decided given that we can’t even agree upon a consistent definition of humanity.

However, as an alternative, I did point out that if we accept the moral principle that the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the foetus, including its right to life - regardless of whether it is human - then the action becomes moral and consistent.

As regards the first part I now see the implicit assumpion in my statement about drawing a line. Someone arguing from the opposite side could say that I have made the assumption that the foetus at some stage should be given rights.

I was simply noting that you began from a very fair initial premise then seeming jumped to a conclusion in the next paragraph. I’m not questioning your conclusions, only how you arrived at them, and that if you arrived at them through little more than assumption atop emotionally charged assumption, then it is probably time you stop and start again.

Otherwise you would end up like Hydroquinone, regurgitating clichés that are based upon cheap emotion and presumption. And regardless of whether one concludes that abortion is right or wrong, we should not allow ourselves such intellectual indolence.

Victor

Hydroquinone wrote:

a) Ireland denies women the same basic human rights as other European countries give their women

What rights would they be?

Right to work?
Right to travel?
Right to life?
Right to family life?
Right to vote?

Sugarbear

Everyone talks about the need to express their opinion, in polls, on threads, in articles all over the world, and they’re so important. Opinions are the things that make us make decisions, and decisions are what make our lives OURS. To restrict someone's decision on whether to have an abortion or not is just as bad as saying either side of the debate is wrong. Decisions are directly linked to a person's view on a matter, and through this, we decide whether or not things are right for us or not. I don't think pro-choice is a side, if you're pro-life and the option is there to have an abortion, you won't choose it. But if you want to have an abortion in Ireland, the option ISN'T there.... and well, isn't that restricting our rights to think, choose and make decisions for ourselves? Many would argue that the unborn child doesn't get a say in this, and that’s another debatable subject, whether a child unborn child even has an opinion, and if it did, would it still give it the right to remain in a woman’s womb if she didn’t wish it there?

I myself value life in every sense, unborn children, the way we live, which also includes the right to make decisions, and I don’t know whether abortion would be right for me in that type of situation, but I do know that I would like every woman in Ireland to have the choice, of either keeping her child, or aborting it, and not to be restricted by other people’s views.

I know of a girl who had an abortion about 4 years ago. She was confident it was the right decision for her, regardless of what everyone else thought, and went to England to have one. She later told me of how having to travel to a foreign country and stay in a strange place that was not her home made her trip one of the worse she’d ever experienced.
She never regretted her decision, only the people who'd made it so hard for her to do what she felt was right for her, and for her unborn child.

Women who want abortions will travel to another country to get them, having an anti-abortion law here won’t stop women from getting them, in fact, it only makes the situation worse by making them feel alienated from their own home.
I hope something comes to light from the actions of these three brave women.

Blub2k4

nesf wrote:

You're ignoring the insatiable human need to force one's morals upon another.

Which is very similar to the mother forcing her rights on to the unborn child when it gets murdered?

The argument with regard to mothers in poor social situations having abortions instead of bearing the child should also come to the logical conclusion that homeless people should be euthanised, as should people who are long-term unemployed and the mentally/physically handicapped also.
It is murder and should be called that, pro-choice my ass, the baby has no choice, it is the choice of people too comfortable to allow a major change in their lives, dont kid yourselves it is murder.
selfish selfish selfish murder, if the baby was born handicapped then Darwin is in play, get over it, that was not a choice you had to make, nature made it, expaditing nature through your own choice does not improve the situation, what that does is shift the responsibilty from Darwinism to a choice to end a life. This is not directed at anyone in particular, and I am not trying to make light of life decisions that anyone has made, I dont have to live with them, I can decide this because I am still here.

Sleepy

Sugarbear wrote:

I do know that I would like every woman in Ireland to have the choice, of either keeping her child, or aborting it, and not to be restricted by other people’s views.

Just to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons: would the father not have a right to have his views listened to at all in your opinion?

simu

Sleepy wrote:

Just to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons: would the father not have a right to have his views listened to at all in your opinion?

What if the father insisted on keeping the baby just to spite the woman and so on? Irl, most people probably do discuss their unwanted pregnancy with the father in fairness but I don't see how the father could be given a veto without it hampering the freedom of the mother.

/edit: Is it even possible to do a paternity test on a foetus?

The Corinthian

simu wrote:

What if the father insisted on keeping the baby just to spite the woman and so on?

Actually you'll sometimes get the reverse being true, with women keeping or terminating a pregnancy for similar reasons, so I don't know if it's a valid point either way.

Nonetheless, father's rights are seriously off topic in this discussion, and it would deserve its own thread.

Victor

simu wrote:

/edit: Is it even possible to do a paternity test on a foetus?

Yes, as with any amniocentesis there are risks, especially of miscarriage. Infact, in the X case there was no abortion there was a miscarraige following amniocentesis to get a DNA match against the suspect.

http://www.swabtest.com/findatest/prenatal.php

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

Just to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons: would the father not have a right to have his views listened to at all in your opinion?

Well the problem is, like it or not, what every action is taken it involves an operation on the woman, and I don't think anyone, including the father, can force the woman to have an operation. So if the father wants an abortion he is kinda out of luck, he can't force an invasive operation on the woman even if abortion is legal.

Whether the father has a right to stop the woman having an abortion really depends on how someone justifies an abortion in the first place. If the woman lives somewhere where abortion is legal and she wants one again the issue of forcing a woman to do something with her body that she does not want to do (ie carry the baby for 9 months) comes up. A similar argument would be does a father have the right to force a mother to give up a kidney to save their child?

People tend to forget that the issue of abortion isn't just about the right to life (or lack of) of the fetous, but also the right of a woman to control what her body does. That is where the whole right of privacy that lead to abortion in the US came from. Can the state force the woman to carry in her body a child when she does not want to? Can the father force the woman to carry/abort the child when she does not want to?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

People tend to forget that the issue of abortion isn't just about the right to life (or lack of) of the fetous, but also the right of a woman to control what her body does.

That’s not entirely true. A woman, or man, cannot harvest their child for organs or sell them into slavery because the child is afforded the same basic rights as the adult.

Of course, if the foetus is not afforded the same rights, then you are entirely correct, however if it is then the right of a woman to control what her body does is of secondary consideration as long as her own right to life is not threatened.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

however if it is then the right of a woman to control what her body does is of secondary consideration as long as her own right to life is not threatened.

I am not sure that is totally true ... right now, under our legal system can a mother be forced by the state to give up a kidney, or lung etc to save her child, or even to give blood to save her child?

I don't know the exact answer, but I don't think they can. And if they are, is that right (not saying it is or isn't, just wondering if people have thought about the issue from this point of view)?

Crimialising abortion is basically forcing a woman to use her body to carry a child for 9 months. But i might be wrong, it might be a criminal act to not allow an operation on yourself to save the life of your child. Anyone know the exact law in Ireland and someone like the US or UK where abortion is legal?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

I am not sure that is totally true ... right now, under our legal system can a mother be forced by the state to give up a kidney, or lung etc to save her child, or even to give blood to save her child?

I don’t think any law is in place that would force her to do so, but there are laws that would likely persecute her if she didn’t; the scenario of some religious groups refusing to allow medical care for their children resulting in the child’s death has been a past example of this.

The other important distinction is between action and inaction. The law will generally see death through direction action to be more serious than death through inaction and abortion falls into the former category.

Again, all assuming that the foetus is afforded equal status.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

I don’t think any law is in place that would force her to do so, but there are laws that would likely persecute her if she didn’t; the scenario of some religious groups refusing to allow medical care for their children resulting in the child’s death has been a past example of this.

Again, thats not quite the same thing. In an example like that the parents stopped medical treatment that had no physical effect on them. The example I used was medical treatment that required the parent to give up bodily privacy. For example, if i am dying in a car accident and you stop the doctors getting to me on religous grounds, that would be considered criminal. But if the doctor said to you "this man is going to die, give me your left kidney", would it be a criminal action if you said "piss off", even if I did die. If not, would that change if you were my father (cold shudder down my back typing that )

Forgetting the moral asspect of the decision, legally my right for medical help to live doesn't over-ride your right to body privacy AFAIK, or in other words the state can't just take your kidney, or even your blood, just because I need it, or punish you for not giving it to me.

The Corinthian wrote:

The other important distinction is between action and inaction. The law will generally see death through direction action to be more serious than death through inaction and abortion falls into the former category.

It does, but it could be argued that the woman has the right to do what ever she wants to her own body, even if that results in the death of another dependent on her body. Does the woman have a right to refuse to allow the foetus to continue to live inside her, as you have to right to refuse to give me your kidney if I am dying? Do you see the point I am getting at?

The Corinthian wrote:

Again, all assuming that the foetus is afforded equal status.

True, this is all assuming the the foetus is a human life legally. The point I am making is the debate over abortion doesn't just stop when someone has decided the foetus is a human life, which is something people tend to forget.

Sugarbear

Sleepy wrote:

Just to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons: would the father not have a right to have his views listened to at all in your opinion?

Well that's a totally different topic there, I mean, we're still in a country where the woman's view doesn't even matter. Of course, if there were to be a change, the father's view would be totally dependant on his relation to her, eg, if they were married, he might have a say. But the topic here is that if a woman doesn't want to CARRY a child in her own body, then she should have the choice to decide whether or not she wants to.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

For example, if i am dying in a car accident and you stop the doctors getting to me on religous grounds, that would be considered criminal. But if the doctor said to you "this man is going to die, give me your left kidney", would it be a criminal action if you said "piss off", even if I did die.

However, neither is that quite the same thing as pregnancy. You won’t grow back that kidney and statistically your lifespan will be shorter as a result. In modern Society, I don’t think you can say that about pregnancy.

Forgetting the moral asspect of the decision

Hold on, I thought that was the point of the discussion?

It does, but it could be argued that the woman has the right to do what ever she wants to her own body, even if that results in the death of another dependent on her body. Does the woman have a right to refuse to allow the foetus to continue to live inside her, as you have to right to refuse to give me your kidney if I am dying? Do you see the point I am getting at?

I see what you’re getting at, however you’ve also circumvented my point on action versus inaction.

The point I am making is the debate over abortion doesn't just stop when someone has decided the foetus is a human life, which is something people tend to forget.

Actually, I would accept your point. It’s a side to the debate that I have not properly considered as yet.

Sugarbear wrote:

Well that's a totally different topic there, I mean, we're still in a country where the woman's view doesn't even matter.

Did you forget women have can vote or were you exaggerating for the purposes of generating a bit of hysteria?

Of course, if there were to be a change, the father's view would be totally dependant on his relation to her, eg, if they were married, he might have a say.

Totally different topic, but you couldn’t help giving your opinion anyway.