Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » We'll agree to disagree. Your position has been made abundantly clear from your above posts. Your issue is with quantum not with the model. (Don't worry though I'll bet you Euros to beans no one reads the 3 pages or so of our discussion. Again I'd like to thank you for the discussion, most useful!)
volchitsa wrote: » I've no idea what your issue is, I've said several times that afaiac there is no point during the pregnancy at which the fetus should have rights that can come in conflict with the woman's human rights. I've said that one can argue that the woman may not be allowed to kill the fetus when that entails a separate action from merely ending the pregnancy, i.e., after viability. How you get from there to suggesting that physically restraining a woman to prevent her from ending a pregnancy is a reasonable position to hold is beyond me. I can only repeat that this would be an egregious abuse of her human rights.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » You're missing the point. You've conceded the point that there is conflict of rights here. If I'm misunderstanding you, could clarify your position?
volchitsa wrote: » It's an unreasonable human rights position to advocate the physical restraint of someone who has not been convicted of a crime other than in the most exceptional circumstances. Claiming to do so on behalf of a fetus which has no legal existence is certainly exceptional alright, but would not, I think, convince any Human Rights body that I know of. So no, you'll have to show me where I ever said what you claim. I didn't.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » It doesn't negate the rights of the foetus, it simply adds another dimension to the rights of the mother. I'd imagine having to take a baby to term which was the result of a rape would be very damaging to the mental health of the mother. This would have to be considered.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Because it's a conflicting rights issue. You've conceded that point. I don't know how else to explain it. You've forwarded the points yourself. It's not an unreasonable pro choice position. It's just incompatible with an absolute right of the mother.
volchitsa wrote: » Not sure what the point is in me repeating this yet again, since you don't seem to want to believe me : not rights that can come in conflict with those of the woman hosting it. In other words, you or I may not be allowed to punch her in the stomach to kill her fetus, but she is allowed to end the pregnancy. You, on the other hand, appear to say that a woman who requests a termination at, say, 21 weeks when the legal limit is 18, should be physically restrained to prevent her terminating the pregnancy until whatever time is judged safe for the baby to be born. How you can think that is much the same opinion as me is beyond me.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » [/B] Okay then what is our point of contention? You already believe that at some point the collection cells, whatever one want to call it gains rights, before it has exitied the womb.
volchitsa wrote: » Yes but I don't understand what you're asking me. Do I think it would be moral for a woman to decide at this V point that she'd had enough of varicose veins and constipation and wanted the baby out, even though that's likely to end in disability for the child? No I don't.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Of course, however we've been talking about certain scenarios.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » I completely disagree. If it's decided that abortion beyond X is illegal than one needs criminal sanction.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » But if someone needed to stick a tube in his brain and suck it out, that would kill him, no? But fair enough I think we've established the analogy isn't useful - my fault for bringing it up again.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » In regard to the biological facts, I'm not sure why you can't see something is being used to illustrate a point however lets call it the V-point. The V-point is designated a s appoint where the baby is viable but has a low chance of survival. Is that fair enough? See the V-point and us departing from this analogy, it just clouds the issue.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » That's counter to what you've said before.
volchitsa wrote: » You realize you can't section someone just because they want to do something illegal, right? So no, a court order couldn't. Not unless the person showed signs of mental illness.
volchitsa wrote: » No, I'm saying that's a possibility, just like driving at 17 3/4 is illegal. I'm not saying I would actually want that to be the case, I don't think it's useful myself. For the same reasons the Royal College of Midwives has adopted a policy of wanting abortion to be removed from criminal law in the UK - because it's not actually a legal problem but a medical one. It falls within the criminal law mainly because of the history of abortion, but that's not in itself a reason to continue that situation.
volchitsa wrote: » No, nobody would be allowed to kill the violinist, they would be allowed to unplug him, i.e. end the pregnancy. Where the analogy ends is that a week before birth, there's no reason to think the baby would die. I'm unsure why you don't understand that simple biological fact.
volchitsa wrote: » If it makes it easier for you, imagine that the violinist would immediately die if unplugged for the first five months or so, but then as his condition improved, his chances of survival even if unplugged before full recovery would begin to improve, and during the last month he might well make an almost full recovery.
volchitsa wrote: » Yeah you're still wrong. Or rather, it can have all the rights anyone wants to grant it, they can worship fetuses, afaiac. What it doesn't have is any right that can be used to deny the woman her human rights. Unless she chooses to forego them - as most pregnant women do, as would know if you'd ever been subjected to the indignity of pregnancy care and birth. :rolleyes:
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » I think if a woman wanted to end her pregnancy at say 25 weeks where the limit is say 18 weeks, a court order could be applied for and that person sectioned if required.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Is what you're saying that you would expect it to be a criminal sanction after the fact in the majority of cases? If so I agree.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » I don't think we disagree on much to be honest. However and I hesitate to bring it up - this is where I think that organ donation analogy is a bit specious. In that analogy one has to arrive at the conclusion that even a week before birth/the concert - one would be allowed to kill the violinist - or at least that's what I got from it.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Hotsback made a good point that having a distaste for abortion did not make one not pro choice (sorry for the double negative there). it made me think, but I arrived at the conclusion that like most things labelling probably doesn't help. I'm not meaning to try and put words into your mouth here but I think you agree that the fetus gains rights at some point. Please correct me there if I'm wrong. I think you're not entirely comfortable on how we'd decide those rights though. This is an entirely different thing to the fetus having no rights until X point ,or maybe it isn't but I don't think a black and white line is useful.
volchitsa wrote: » I'm fairly sure you'll find no democracies where the woman can even potentially be strapped down and force fed because she's missed the deadline though - the legal limits in most countries are of the same level as voting or drinking ages, i.e. somewhat arbitrary dates because the law requires a line in the sand. Whereas here you are using this arbitrary concept to allow what would be a clear case of false imprisonment in most countries. That requires a whole other level of justification, in terms of human rights legislation, and I haven't seen any from anyone.
volchitsa wrote: » I think the confusion arises from the fact that you're discussing how the details of this law could be worked out, but you haven't set out any basis for why the woman should be forced in the first place, IOW why the fetus has any rights over her body at all. As I said, I have no problem accepting the view that the (normally developing) fetus itself should not be directly killed because the woman wishes it - my argument is that she has at least some degree of entitlement not to be pregnant any more. So if she ends her pregnancy at 8 or 12 or 16 weeks, the fetus will die. If she ends it at 30 weeks it will live - and in between those dates I can easily envisage that the law might not allow her to decide to end a pregnancy where that will cause the resulting child to endure otherwise avoidable disability due to its premature birth.
volchitsa wrote: » So I don't see that being pro choice means she has to be allowed to end a pregnancy at any stage, without consequences for her. It just means she has to be able to do so in the early stages of her pregnancy. Later terminations would have to be for pressing reasons only - but at no point would physical restraint of the woman be an acceptable solution because of the supposed rights of the fetus. That way madness lies - what about fetal alcohol syndrome? And so on.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Indeed, but we'd both arrived at an impasse there. You had said at a certain point it was no longer an abortion and I said viability seemed reasonable but possibly earlier. Personally I think it's a fluid scale for both, however that scale is very, very low at the stage of an early foetus. In reality this is what happens in the vast majority of countries with legal abortion - it's legal until X weeks.
It could but one would have to look at the facts on the ground, as informed by mental healh professional. In practice this is already done, court orders etc. One could legislate for abortion without the need for this until X weeks of course, but I'd like to see a medical justification for it. For example - 12 weeks it's got no nervous system, etc. I'm not sure exactly where the confusion is arising? I'm trying to be as clear as possible but I'm certainly happy to keep trying as you have with me! I hear ya!
volchitsa wrote: » But what exactly are those grounds? Outside of the traditional "new soul created upon conception" theory, there doesn't seem to be any even minimally coherent explanation for supposing that the fetus should have rights that can outweigh those of the woman.
volchitsa wrote: » But an unwanted pregnancy could potentially do the same. How can the law decide that one set of circumstances causes such harm to the woman that a fetus actually loses its right to life, but that no other circumstances (undefined) can possibly cause comparable harm.
volchitsa wrote: » Not too sure what you're saying here : the law on abortion should be based on third parties' moral discomfort at the woman's consent or lack of it, and not on the supposed right to life of the fetus?
volchitsa wrote: » No worries. RL does get in the way sometimes. Inexplicably. :rolleyes:
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Moral and ethical grounds of the rights of the fetus outweighing the rights of the mother.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » As above and a court, ideally with a specialist judge. The court would be informed my mental heal professionals.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » *** Sorry it took me longer to get back to you than I promised.
volchitsa wrote: » Forced as in strapped down and force fed, as per the HSE's court application? (I think it was actually forced hydration that was requested initially, but presumably if that had been granted the necessary next step would have been forced feeding.) On what moral/ethical grounds would that be acceptable, assuming she wasn't actively suicidal?
volchitsa wrote: » However I'm not sure why you think rape means the fetus should have fewer rights (another reason I don't think that the concept of granting fetal rights as a useful approach to abortion). Why should the circumstances of its conception make it a second class fetus in some way? Either it has these rights or it doesn't, surely?
volchitsa wrote: » There's the real rub : we're no nearer to deciding on what grounds we would make that decision. A fetus conceived of rape seems to have fewer rights than one where the woman was a bit drunk and thought "Ah, feckit, sure it'll be grand"?? It all seems very random, and not based on fetal rights at all really, but more on other people's levels of personal discomfort at the various possible outcomes.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Possibly but I simply can't get behind the rabid fecking idiots that seem to make up some of the 'activists' I've been exposed to on the 'pro-choice' side.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » volchitsa - thanks again for the discussion, I've very much enjoyed the conversation and found the latter part very useful in clarifying my thoughts. I'm heading to bed now, if you post any more I'll reply tomorrow (later today even!).
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » In the case she is suicidal and we've arrived at a point that she's 24 weeks in, a c-section should be performed and the baby delivered. As I say though I'm not opposed to an abortion at this point in the Y - scenario. In the case the mother is not suicidal though I'd suggest that she should be forced to carry the child to term.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » However I have to stress this is in the context of getting to 24 weeks. Long before that, especially in the case of a rape, an abortion would have been the best course of action. At that point we're talking about a non-developed fetus vs. the mental well being of the mother.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » It doesn't lead to an automatic assumption but the right to life of both are weighed. One might or might not take into account other rights such as freedom from restraint, but only in the context of deciding who has the greater right, and then you do what's needed to carry out that goal.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Absolutely. It's incredibly difficult to get right and an area I imagine shifting over time.
volchitsa wrote: » Why would it be different, and what should be done in that case? (Since even if she were suicidal, as the HSE showed us, then one way to exercise the right to life of both would be to get a court order etc etc)
volchitsa wrote: » I still don't see where your approach of conflicting rights leads to an automatic assumption that the mother's right not to be restrained trumps that of the child's right to life. Surely a right to life, if such a right is to have any meaning at all, cannot be trumped by some less essential right not to be pregnant, or indeed the right to move around freely?
volchitsa wrote: » Well I wouldn't disagree there, but I think that once one tries to attribute rights to entities whose exact nature and moral standing we are unsure of, the same problems are going to arise anyway. The only difference is the law can be changed fairly easily if it becomes clear that it is not working well.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Ah sorry! The Y scenario - I answered it and then said it would be different if the Y was not suicidal.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Sorry still a bit confused what you mean here. Yes you should strap the mother down and force feed her, if you've arrived at the conclusion that the life of the child outweighs her right not to be pregnant anymore. However In the Y case I think the only option is to terminate, therefore you don't don't strap her down etc.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Although I do stress again that you have to have some pretty odd, poorly thought out laws to get into this situation in the first place. One such example is Ireland trying to do this by constitutional amendment rather than properly considered legislation and alterable, but I might be digressing there.
volchitsa wrote: » You said "taking the same fact pattern but removing the threat to the life of the mother I could see that as the right course" - I don't know what you mean by "that".
volchitsa wrote: » Well, it certainly doesn't explain why the mother's right not to be pregnant outweighs the child's right to life. Because, as I said, the HSE seemed to be proceeding along the lines that if you strap the mother down and force feed her, then both will live. Which is a good point, if one is weighing up conflicting rights. Isn't it?
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » ... So yes, although neither are ideal. eh? Sorry come again there, genuinely just missed this one.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Probably more likely c-section but I wouldn't be adverse to an out and out abortion in this scenario either, sorry I thought I said that, sorry if it wasn't clear. How does saying the life of the mother outweighs the life of the child in this scenario present anything other than a conflicting rights scenario?
volchitsa wrote: » You said this before but I don't think I did, and I asked you then for an example. You didn't give me any. You OTOH have agreed that you have misread what I said more than once. So unless you can tell me what I misread (and not examples where you misspoke, such as your point about wanting factual discussion when in fact that's not really what you meant) I'm going to assume that you're just back to playing your peeing contest again.
volchitsa wrote: » But it did get that far, which is why I mentioned it. You wanted to discuss your invented scenario, but this is a real one. And in Ireland. By the way, what would you have done in the Ms Y case?
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » That's an interesting scenario. Firstly I'd never let it get that far. Secondly if it did, I'd have to argue the right to life of the mother, now suicidal, outweighed the right to life of the child, especially as I would expect the chances of survival of that child to be fairly low.
volchitsa wrote: » The problem with your conflict of interest approach is that by tying down the woman and force feeding her (which is pretty much what the HSE wanted to do) both would live. So by your thinking, that would be a better outcome. Wouldn't it?
volchitsa wrote: » Funny that you wanted me to reply to a completely fictitious scenario and one that would never happen, while you're clearly ill at ease with a real one that happened in Ireland, because of our laws.
volchitsa wrote: » (I don't really understand what you're suggesting should happen here, either. See what as the right course?)
volchitsa wrote: » So this looks as though you're saying she should have been allowed to end her pregnancy at 24 weeks, by vaginal birth if that was safer for her, even if it reduced the baby's chance of surviving. Or are you saying something else? It's hard to tell. And it rather contradicts your conflicting rights concept.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Yeah, see I'm getting the same impression from you. Let's strike a deal, substantive discussion only after you've made a point about me making this point. Fair enough?
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » That's an interesting scenario. Firstly I'd never let it get that far.
Secondly if it did, I'd have to argue the right to life of the mother, now suicidal, outweighed the right to life of the child, especially as I would expect the chances of survival of that child to be fairly low.
Taking the same fact pattern though but removing the threat to life of the mother I'd probably say I could see that as the right course. I stress though, it should never get that far.
We got into all of this because I was advocating against absolute rights, although to be fair to King, I think we ended up more debating semantics in the end now I've reflected on his/her posts. That was another reason though (the absolute rights argument) I wanted to untangle ourselves from that position. Certainly no argument from me there.
