Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't that old tactic of 'make no statements, defend no assertions, can never be shown to be wrong if all you ever do is question others' reasoning' quite an obnoxious way of debating?
I find it quite amazing that after all these thousands of posts (493 in this third iteration alone) you can't tell me what is not included in the term 'unborn child'.
Surely even a single example would prove useful.

Definitely still not not presenting a reason to think there actually is a sound basis for your question, so I guess we're still in vacuous waffle territory.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Kettle, pot, black.

You have to admit though, at least I'm making the effort not to go there.....

[Deleted User]

Absolam wrote: »

Definitely still not not presenting a reason to think there actually is a sound basis for your question, so I guess we're still in vacuous waffle territory.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you had answered this question at the time perhaps we wouldn't be this far down the path yet. I will pause and allow you to answer it before continuing.

Deleted User wrote:

On an atomic level, what isn't an unborn child?

Well given that the question above which you still haven't answered could give us a very important finding here - that there are an absolutely enormous number of things that are indeed technically 'unborn children', then you can understand why I'm trying to be a bit more precise than simply using the moniker as an atomic scientist could if they so wished choose to.

Well that was mercifully brief.. if equally vague. I can't say '.' actually contributes much to the debate though.

[Deleted User]

Strange. It seems to completely disprove this assertion

Absolam wrote: »

Definitely still not not presenting a reason to think there actually is a sound basis for your question, so I guess we're still in vacuous waffle territory.

Which you give as a reason not to answer the question.

So if that reason is gone, then what other reasons are you using not to answer the straightforward question?

Deleted User wrote:

On an atomic level, what isn't an unborn child?

Is this the fabled 'Inverse Soapbox' at play?

Deleted User wrote: »

Strange. It seems to completely disprove this assertion
Which you give as a reason not to answer the question.
So if that reason is gone, then what other reasons are you using not to answer the straightforward question?
Is this the fabled 'Inverse Soapbox' at play?

Nope '.' is assuredly not presenting a reason to think there actually is a sound basis for your question. Asking other questions doesn't present a reason either... just other questions. Hence the concern about venturing into vacuous waffle territory, which seems eminently justified given your new musings on atomic scientists. And inverse soapboxes.

[Deleted User]

Absolam wrote: »

Nope '.' is assuredly not presenting a reason to think there actually is a sound basis for your question.

Absolutely agreed. boards.ie requires at least a single character when making a post so when I quoted myself, I was asked to submit something other than simply quoting my earlier which directly addressed yours.

I chose a period.

It is not the character that presents the reason, but the quote that precedes it.

Absolam wrote: »

Asking other questions doesn't present a reason either... just other questions. Hence the concern about venturing into vacuous waffle territory, which seems eminently justified given your new musings on atomic scientists. And inverse soapboxes.

It's all really, really very straightforward. What is an unborn child? Do you know of a single example of something which is not an unborn child?

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely agreed. boards.ie requires at least a single character when making a post so when I quoted myself, I was asked to submit something other than simply quoting my earlier which directly addressed yours. I chose a period. It is not the character that presents the reason, but the quote that precedes it. It's all really, really very straightforward. What is an unborn child? Do you know of a single example of something which is not an unborn child?

You get that your questions doesn't actually present a reason to think there actually is a sound basis for your original question? It just adds other questions. You may want me to present a reason for you, but that's not really likely to happen; you'll have to come up with it yourself I'm afraid.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know of a single example of something which is not an unborn child?

Asking a related question in the Christianity forum yesterday, presenting a number of possible candidates for unborn people, none of the regular pro-life contributors seems able or willing to answer this. Apparently, it has nothing to do with having a soul either, no siree, because that might suggest the pro-life position is based on a dogmatic religious position dictated by a church that people have apparently stopped attending so much of late.

Anyhoo, regardless of what an unborn child is, or that no one could identify one in a line-up, it clearly has rights that make in an equal of a fully grown woman. So that's that. Right? :rolleyes:

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

No [...] unanswered.

You've been carded for ignoring a mod instruction; making an unhelpful comment about a forum moderator and quoting "vague", "unctuous", "tedious" and "word-splitting" as though they were in the warning, as it stands now, which you received

frag420

Absolam wrote: »

Nah, you didn't. You just altered it in order to mock....
You'll have to find one to ask them I'd say... but as far as I know the concept can be attributed to a Monthy Python sketch mocking Catholic opposition to contraception, so it seems unlikely that anyone anywhere believes all sperm are sacred. If someone does, I imagine they'll correct me.
Sounds like you're leaping to a conclusion from an assumption there. Whilst your nocturnal habits are no doubt enormously fascinating to you, and may be of some concern to whoever might be unfortunate enough to find themselves in the vicinity of the results (unlikely as that may be), they're probably not a subject anyone on boards is likely to want to discuss, so you're probably ok keeping that particular struggle to yourself.

Possibly, but I wouldn't be inclined to opine.

Nurse, give this guy 350 mg of SOH stat!

smacl wrote: »

Asking a related question in the Christianity forum yesterday, presenting a number of possible candidates for unborn people, none of the regular pro-life contributors seems able or willing to answer this.

I think a few offered an opinion on how nonsensical it was though, so it might give an inkling as to why they were unwilling to answer it. And, of course, there's the fact that a pro choice poster asking Christians to decide which picture is a person and which is not looks suspiciously like someone trying to make some point that they may not want to engage with them on.....

smacl wrote: »

Apparently, it has nothing to do with having a soul either, no siree, because that might suggest the pro-life position is based on a dogmatic religious position dictated by a church that people have apparently stopped attending so much of late.

Apparently is a bit of a stretch; the post you're quoting certainly had nothing to do with your poll might be more accurate, since it was actually (not apparently) saying that contrary to your assertions, it's possible to hold the belief that an unborn child should be accorded human rights without requiring a notion such as ensoulment. A point that you failed to rebut as I recall, and shuffled away from, instead deciding that there are three (unsubstantitated) stages of development; might be people, probably people and actual people, all of which should not be treated as equal.

smacl wrote: »

Anyhoo, regardless of what an unborn child is, or that no one could identify one in a line-up, it clearly has rights that make in an equal of a fully grown woman. So that's that. Right? :rolleyes:

Well, regardless of what people choose to identify in your pictures, clearly the unborn has a right to life, which is equal to that of the mother, yes. Right.

Absolam wrote: »

it's possible to hold the belief that an unborn child should be accorded human rights without requiring a notion such as ensoulment

Possible but highly improbable. The vast majority of pro-life / anti-choice mob are also strongly religious, and the pro-life stance is backed by the church. The notion that a freshly fertilised embryo, indistinguishable to anyone other than a trained biologist from any small blob of similar organic matter, is somehow a person that should be accorded rights similar to any other person clear requires that the human embryo posses something above and beyond that held by other similar sized blobs of organic matter. What exactly is that thing if not the Christian notion of a soul? It certainly doesn't seem to me to be anything physical, so what else is there to indicate at any level this collection of matter is any way sentient and should be accorded any rights?

smacl wrote: »

so what else is there to indicate at any level this collection of matter is any way sentient and should be accorded any rights?

But the opposite argument would be equally nonsensical; that full human rights be accorded at one end of the birth canal and none at the other.
It is obvious then that all the unborn must have some sort of human rights (although the exact amount we may disagree on).

smacl wrote: »

Possible but highly improbable. The vast majority of pro-life / anti-choice mob are also strongly religious, and the pro-life stance is backed by the church.

Perhaps you only find it improbable because it doesn't accord with your own point of view? I'm not sure how you think you can quantify the likelihood of someone else basing their opinion on a set of criteria that you don't think exist, so I suspect your assessment of the probability stops short at the fact that you simply disagree with it. The fact that you characterise those you disagree with as a 'mob' might indicate a certain unwillingness to consider their opinions as probable in any case, but it has to be said, if you now allow that it is possible, then you must agree that it does not, in fact, require a notion such as ensoulment. That's just another possibility.

smacl wrote: »

The notion that a freshly fertilised embryo, indistinguishable to anyone other than a trained biologist from any small blob of similar organic matter, is somehow a person that should be accorded rights similar to any other person clear requires that the human embryo posses something above and beyond that held by other similar sized blobs of organic matter. What exactly is that thing if not the Christian notion of a soul?

The simple fact that it is a human? You may not believe that's sufficient reason to accord a blob or organic matter rights, but that doesn't mean no one else can... without worrying about the Christian notion of a soul. Or for that matter someone may feel some other criterion you haven't thought of is sufficient cause; it's not like the only possibility is a soul, is it?

smacl wrote: »

It certainly doesn't seem to me to be anything physical, so what else is there to indicate at any level this collection of matter is any way sentient and should be accorded any rights?

Well, that something ought to be sentient in order to be accorded rights is obviously a threshold that satisfies you, and I'm sure some others too. But it's not exactly a necessary criterion; it's just one that suits your point of view really, like a soul for some, or being a human for others, or having a heartbeat, whatever people fancy. It would only be a requirement if we chose to make it so; in that regard it's as random as any other marker.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

But the opposite argument would be equally nonsensical; that full human rights be accorded at one end of the birth canal and none at the other.
It is obvious then that all the unborn must have some sort of human rights (although the exact amount we may disagree on).

That is the essence of the 8th amendment: that the feotus has the exact same right to life (nothing lesser) that the woman [in who's womb it is living] has; from it's inception to it's birth, and it is that which the pro-Life groups wish to retain.

Would I be presumptuous if I thought - from your [It is obvious then that all the unborn must have some sort of human rights (although the exact amount we may disagree on)] - that you recognize the legal POLDPA position that if two (2) doctors signed off as a medical and legal fact that the feotus in the womb of a woman (any woman) was a danger to the life of the woman, that the pregnancy should be terminated and the feotus aborted to save the life of the woman?

It seem's to me that POLDPA, implicitly at the very least and explicitly at it's greatest [depending on one's choice of understanding it] recognizes and accords a lesser right to life to the fotus in such a situation, and that as it is a state law, that the state (despite the 8th amendment) is stating that that that is a fact, thus negating the wording [or at least the apparent intent] of the 8th amendment guarantee given to the unborn [feotus].

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me that POLDPA, implicitly at the very least and explicitly at the greatest [depending on one's choice of understanding it] recognizes and accords a lesser right to life to the fotus in such a situation, and as it is a state law, that the state (despite the 8th amendment) says that is a fact.

Of course it does, this is due to the Supreme Court X Case.

aloyisious wrote: »

Would I be presumptuous if I thought - from your [It is obvious then that all the unborn must have some sort of human rights (although the exact amount we may disagree on)] - that you recognize the legal POLDPA position that if two (2) doctors signed off as a medical and legal fact that the feotus in the womb of a woman (any woman) was a danger to the life of the woman, that the pregnancy should be terminated and the feotus aborted to save the life of the woman?

It seem's to me that POLDPA, implicitly at the very least and explicitly at it's greatest [depending on one's choice of understanding it] recognizes and accords a lesser right to life to the fotus in such a situation, and that as it is a state law, that the state (despite the 8th amendment) is stating that that that is a fact, thus negating the wording [or at least the apparent intent] of the 8th amendment guarantee given to the unborn [feotus].

Yes, I agree with all of the above. By sanctioning the lawful killing of the unborn in order to save the mother, the POLDPA effectively grants a lesser right to life to the unborn, and not an equal right as stated in the 8th amendment. An Irish solution to an Irish problem, I suppose.

IMO this came about because in the X-case it was realised in a hurry that the actual wording of the 8th amendment was unjust in certain circumstances. An emergency ruling was made, but then they tried to say that the ruling only applied in that particular case, and was not a general rule. But that's not how things really work. As it subsequently transpired, a legal principle had been established, and eventually that principle had to be codified into legislation. Thus we have effectively changed the constitution without having a referendum. We did it by changing the meaning of the words, just like the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. As he said, words can mean whatever we want them to mean.
Yeah I know, its a strange kind of bull$hit, but a majority of people have seemed happy enough with it so far.

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

Yes, I agree with all of the above. By sanctioning the lawful killing of the unborn in order to save the mother, the POLDPA effectively grants a lesser right to life to the unborn, and not an equal right as stated in the 8th amendment. An Irish solution to an Irish problem, I suppose.

But the right of the unborn was always lesser in medical practice. If you really treated the foetus as of equal status to the pregnant woman you would only sanction an abortion if there was a 50/50 chance the woman would die, which has clearly never been practice in our hospitals. The X-case ruling 'real and substantial threat' test is closer to the reality but raises all sorts of other issues, notably how do you deal with the suicidal pregnant woman?

aloyisious

There's a post on F/B from Get the Truth Out, with this message: Do those promoting the image seeking repeal of Ireland's pro-life laws realise what abortion really means? LIKE and SHARE this alternative message. Thank you.

I don't suppose GtTO think imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It's the first time I've "heard" of GtTO. I expect more such pages and groups to pop up at minimum cost promoting "save the 8th" until the referendum on it. They just won't fade away quietly.

Some, not all, of the responders are definitely Pro-Life people, esp this person, if i understand what [its a womans right to choose murder the same way its a man hiding in a parks right to choose murder] he wrote correctly...

Edit.... looking again at the re-designed version of the "Repeal the 8th" design from The Project Art Centre exterior wall, it seem's to me that it's pro-Life designer has missed or ignored one major point; and that is that should one go along with his/her message [abortion stops a beating heart] there is also the fact that that could mean [as POLDPA only allows for abortion/termination to save the woman's life] that the woman's heart would stop beating.

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me that POLDPA, implicitly at the very least and explicitly at it's greatest [depending on one's choice of understanding it] recognizes and accords a lesser right to life to the fotus in such a situation, and that as it is a state law, that the state (despite the 8th amendment) is stating that that that is a fact, thus negating the wording [or at least the apparent intent] of the 8th amendment guarantee given to the unborn [feotus].

I think that's a misreading of the POLDPA. Firstly, the right to life is Constitution, so it cannot be amended or altered by legislation (such as the POLDPA); any such legislation being unConstitutional is invalid. No legislation may be enacted 'despite the 8th Amendment'; if the Oireachtas believed the POLDPA to be unConstitutional they could not have passed it, if the Attorney General held such an opinion they would have said so, causing the President to place it before the Supreme Court. There are certainly enough people in Ireland opposed to expanding the availability of abortion in Ireland that any hint of unConstitutionality would have occasioned an attempt to bring it before the Supreme Court... but that didn't happen either.
These things did not happen because the POLPDA is Constitutional; it doesn't afford a lesser right to the unborn. The fact is, as Hotblack Desiato and MrPudding are known to point out, rights are qualified; there are very few (if any) absolute rights. The right to life may be qualified by law within the limits of the Constitutional provision, or by circumstance, and the POLDPA deals with situations where the right to life of the unborn is qualified by circumstance; the continuing life (not the right to life) of the unborn is dependent on the continuing life of the mother for most of it's existence as 'unborn'. Should the life of the mother fail, that circumstance is beyond what is practicable for the State by its laws to interfere with in order to defend and vindicate the right to life. In short, if it is impossible to maintain the life of the unborn, no law the State can make can defend the right to life of the unborn. In the X Case the Supreme Court held that neither the right to life nor the right to travel were absolute, and that the right to life conferred on the unborn is explicitly qualified by (but did not hold it is lesser than) the equal right to life of the mother, and what is practicable for the State to do in law.

It would be silly to think that acknowledging the fact that life cannot always be preserved is the same as affording a lesser right to life; the right remains the same, regardless of which, people die. The State is obliged to ensure the right to life of the unborn is respected, defended, and vindicated in law as far as is practicable, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother. It is not obliged to preserve that life in all circumstances, or to attempt to do so when such an attempt is futile; not doing so in no way makes the right to life any 'lesser'.

recedite wrote: »

But the opposite argument would be equally nonsensical; that full human rights be accorded at one end of the birth canal and none at the other.
It is obvious then that all the unborn must have some sort of human rights (although the exact amount we may disagree on).

I think you need to define exactly what you mean by the word 'unborn' here. I struggle to understand how an embryo or early stage foetus which is entirely dependant on the pregnant woman carrying it in order to gestate into what most people would recognise as a baby can be considered to have rights independent of that woman.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

But the opposite argument would be equally nonsensical; that full human rights be accorded at one end of the birth canal and none at the other.

Indeed. Thankfully not many people are advocating that position. There is at least one on this thread who does however, who thinks that we can happily kill it right up until the day before it is born. Any attempts to get that user to back up that position though descends into him storming off or insulting you, so I am not holding out much hope of understanding the position.

recedite wrote: »

It is obvious then that all the unborn must have some sort of human rights (although the exact amount we may disagree on).

Yea it would be nice if these people could explain what exactly they are hanging human rights on, and what point in the development process that something appears. Some people, as was pointed out in the last couple of pages, imagine there is some kind of "soul" which appears at some arbitrary point like the moment of conception... and this is what they hang human rights on.

But other than that I do not see many of the anti choice brigade hanging human rights on anything but the word "human". They simply say that the zygote or fetus is "human" and therefore that is enough to afford it human rights. SOME of those happily shift between calling the zygote or fetus "Human" and "potentially human" or a "potential person" too which only makes them seem more confused about what it is they think they are actually saying.

Corpses and cancer cells are "Human" too if the definition of "Human" is dilute or labile enough. But I appear to be entirely unable to pin any of them down to a definition that is not massively dilute or labile. Which leaves me with no other impression than they simply want to keep it as vague as possible in order to validate this "Human" to "Human rights" leap that they need to make.

smacl wrote: »

I struggle to understand how an embryo or early stage foetus which is entirely dependant on the pregnant woman carrying it in order to gestate into what most people would recognise as a baby can be considered to have rights independent of that woman.

Rights are a purely social construct; anything can be considered to have any rights we want, we simply decide that we want to consider it so. That you have issues with the rationales other people have for affording the right to life to the unborn is fairly apparent but I would suggest that's simply a matter of perspective. You don't see a reason to give a right to something you don't feel is comparable to a person. I don't see a reason to take a right away from a person. I would say the only real difference between what you and I consider a person is time, though I'm sure you'll try to persuade us of something more substantial.

Absolam wrote: »

I would say the only real difference between what you and I consider a person is time, though I'm sure you'll try to persuade us of something more substantial.

Indeed, before I was born I was not a person, after I die I will no longer be a person. I am quite aware that I am only a person for a very limited period of time, unlike some religious types who would seem to think they will persist for all of eternity, and were somehow people before they had a nervous system let alone a brain. Some people do harbour some rather far fetched notions, don't you think?

Absolam wrote: »

.. any such legislation being unConstitutional is invalid. No legislation may be enacted 'despite the 8th Amendment'; if the Oireachtas believed the POLDPA to be unConstitutional they could not have passed it, if the Attorney General held such an opinion they would have said so, causing the President to place it before the Supreme Court.
These things did not happen because the POLPDA is Constitutional; it doesn't afford a lesser right to the unborn.

In the distant past, it was not uncommon for women to die in childbirth. Human society has had a very long time to accept that even though they may value the newborn, they value the mother much more. Very few people would disagree with that.
So in a hypothetical modern scenario where the doctor has to choose between the life of the unborn and the mother, the mother has priority. The 8th amendment, in referring to "the equal right to life of the unborn" is just too simplistic to recognise this.
IMO the POLPDA legislation is unconstitutional, but at the same time too few people wanted to oppose it, and nobody wants to face up to the legal paradox that has been created.
If it had been referred to the SC, they would have come up with some Mad Hatter type ruling such that "everyone is in fact equal, but some people are more equal than others". So that would have been a complete waste of time and resources, and also extremely politically damaging to whoever had pushed it and forced the SC into the ruling.

smacl wrote: »

I think you need to define exactly what you mean by the word 'unborn' here.

Anything from a fertilised zygote up to a baby on its way down the birth canal.

smacl wrote: »

Indeed, before I was born I was not a person, after I die I will no longer be a person. I am quite aware that I am only a person for a very limited period of time..

Maybe, but as a 1 year old you were not the same person that you are now. Yet you were still a person. Therefore you will have been multiple persons before you die. You are like a butterfly denying that caterpillars have a right to life.

smacl wrote: »

Indeed, before I was born I was not a person, after I die I will no longer be a person. I am quite aware that I am only a person for a very limited period of time, unlike some religious types who would seem to think they will persist for all of eternity, and were somehow people before they had a nervous system let alone a brain. Some people do harbour some rather far fetched notions, don't you think?

There's no actual reason to think you weren't a person before you were born though; like I said, it's a philosophical concept. You could have been a person since you implanted, you could have been one since you were conceived, you might even have been one since you were a twinkle in Gods eye. Birth is as reasonably handy point as any other on which you can hang your concept of personhood (or humanity, whatever you fancy), but it's hardly a definitive one.

recedite wrote: »

You are like a butterfly denying that caterpillars have a right to life.

Pretty weak analogy, in that caterpillars and butterflies are independent organisms where as human embryo in a woman's womb is most certainly not.

As a species it is also worth considering how much further we'd like to grow our total numbers. While the Christian imperative of 'go forth and multiply' made pragmatic sense in biblical times, it clearly no longer does and common sense dictates that we now plan our families rather the breed until we've reached a point where we have exhausted all our natural resources and see a natural population collapse through starvation or war as a result.

In my opinion, forcing a woman to have a child she emphatically does not want, that society does not need, at the behest of the dogma of a ancient patriarchal religion is barbaric, inhumane and just plain stupid. Just my opinion of course, you might well think of a human zygote as a person deserving of human rights. I'd imagine very many people taught in a strong Catholic ethos primary school would be indoctrinated with a very similar opinion. I wonder will it be an opinion shared by our children's generation?