Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Options
13567…48

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Consonata wrote: »
    Like being separated from the mother?

    A foetus living is dependent on remaining in the mother up to a certain stage

    That's an incredibly tautological point to raise. Did you know that water also happens to be wet?


  • Options
    #63
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,017 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Again, this doesn't have a bearing on the legalisation of abortion - the foetus encounters an issue which necessitates its own demise. Nobody is saying we should be trying to keep foetuses with FFA alive, we're disputing the fact that they're somehow not a life from when they're conceived.

    Well that's progress, because at present the law does say that, and until very recently this was the standard pro life view as well.

    In fact I'm not aware that it has ever been jettisoned.


  • Options
    #64
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Well that's progress, because at present the law does say that, and until very recently this was the standard pro life view as well.

    In fact I'm not aware that it has ever been jettisoned.

    The law doesn't state that. We have an example of it happening when a braindead woman was allowed to be taken off life support (which killed the foetus with FFA she was carrying). If your argument was true, then the person turning off the life support machine should've been imprisoned.


  • Options
    #65
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,017 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    The law doesn't state that. We have an example of it happening when a braindead woman was allowed to be taken off life support (which killed the foetus with FFA she was carrying). If your argument was true, then the person turning off the life support machine should've been imprisoned.

    Fear of possible imprisonment is exactly why that poor woman was left to literally rot in front of her children, and why we paid a judge an absolute fortune to hear the case over the Christmas/New Year holidays a couple of years ago.

    So if you're saying that the law works because in the end the woman was buried and not left until the fetus was clinically dead, I'd disagree strongly. A good law doesn't require paying lawyers a juicy fee to find a way to make the law agree with doctors' clinical opinions.

    Oh and it didn't have an FFA, by the way. The question was whether the woman and her family were entitled to a normal burial. So it really doesn't prove your claim about FFA where the woman is not decomposing on a "death support" machine.


  • Options
    #66
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Fear of possible imprisonment is exactly why that poor woman was left to literally rot in front of her children..
    That's your opinion. From reading closely whatever info was publicly available, including what was in the judgement, my opinion is that one particular doctor wanted to see how far medical boundaries could be pushed, and had to be stopped by a court order.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Again, this doesn't have a bearing on the legalisation of abortion - the foetus encounters an issue which necessitates its own demise. Nobody is saying we should be trying to keep foetuses with FFA alive, we're disputing the fact that they're somehow not a life from when they're conceived.

    That was a neat pivot from your original point. The fact remains that perhaps two-thirds of all fertilised eggs are aborted before coming to term (and your creative reading notwithstanding, that doesn't mean that the remainder have fatal abnormalities).

    The phrase "a life" is an interesting one, too. An amoeba is "a life". The question is whether or not a fertilised egg is a human being, and as such has legal rights.

    Most reasonable people accept that a fertilised egg is not a human being, but that it has become one by the time it's born. As such, a line needs to be drawn somewhere, in the same way that we draw arbitrary lines that define whether someone is a child or an adult.

    I realise that there are people who believe that a fertilised egg should have exactly the same rights as a human child, but that's objectively daft.


  • Options
    #68
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ... As such, a line needs to be drawn somewhere, in the same way that we draw arbitrary lines that define whether someone is a child or an adult.
    I'm not aware of where this exact line is, between a child and an adult? Have you forgotten about teenagers?

    I suggest that in the context of this discussion, "a life" means a human life with the potential for an independent human existence ultimately. But not capable of independent existence currently.

    This definition would cover a foetus the day before it is born, and also the day after.
    It would not necessarily cover a foetus with FFA, or some other abnormality causing it to miscarry, or an early stage zygote that had failed to implant in the womb.


  • Options
    #69
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    I'm not aware of where this line is?
    It seems to be generally drawn at the 12-week mark. That tends to be the point before which countries with relatively liberal regimes allow termination on request.
    I suggest that in the context of this discussion, "a life" means a human life with the potential for an independent human existence ultimately. But not capable of independent existence currently.

    This definition would cover a foetus the day before it is born, and also the day after.

    It could also, depending on how you fudge the definitions, include a fertilised egg - which, as I said, is objectively daft. So it probably doesn't make sense to introduce loaded terms for the purposes of the discussion.

    The problem with trying to hand-craft definitions is that they tend to get framed to suit the perspective of the person doing the crafting. There's no need to define "a life", except in an effort to try to take away people's control over their reproductive rights.


  • Options
    #70
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    I'm not aware of where this exact line is, between a child and an adult? Have you forgotten about teenagers?

    I replied before you edited. Please don't misquote me in an attempt to steer the debate. I explicitly said "arbitrary lines", not "an exact line".

    We draw an arbitrary line before which we don't let people drink, drive, vote, marry... nothing is biologically different about those people one second either side of those lines. That's what makes them arbitrary.


  • Options
    #71
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    We draw an arbitrary line before which we don't let people drink, drive, vote, marry... nothing is biologically different about those people one second either side of those lines. That's what makes them arbitrary.
    That is correct. So now you suggest we draw an arbitrary line at 12 weeks, respecting full human rights on one side of it, but zero rights on the other. Knowing that "nothing is biologically different about those people one second either side of those lines".

    Mind you, I fully expect this to be the government advocated position from early in the new year.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Consonata
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭Consonata


    recedite wrote: »
    That is correct. So now you suggest we draw an arbitrary line at 12 weeks, respecting full human rights on one side of it, but zero rights on the other. Knowing that "nothing is biologically different about those people one second either side of those lines".

    Mind you, I fully expect this to be the government advocated position from early in the new year.

    The fetus does not have full human rights on either side of the line because it isn't a human, before the line is just the point wherein abortion is allowed under all circumstances. Afterward abortion may still be possible in the case of FFA, or danger to the life of the mother because the life should always take precedence over the potential of life.


  • Options
    #73
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    That is correct. So now you suggest we draw an arbitrary line at 12 weeks, respecting full human rights on one side of it, but zero rights on the other. Knowing that "nothing is biologically different about those people one second either side of those lines".

    I didn't suggest that, but before I follow you down this rabbit hole, are you arguing against all arbitrary lines, or just this one?

    Because I'm not interested in explaining the validity of one arbitrary line to someone who accepts the validity of all others.


  • Options
    #74
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    are you arguing against all arbitrary lines, or just this one?
    As a general observation, arbitrary lines are acceptable when the consequences for those affected are less serious.
    Eg arbitrary searches of suspects are one thing, but arbitrary hangings are another.

    Regarding the unborn, my personal view is that they deserve protection on a sliding scale, from virtually none at conception to almost 100% just before birth. If arbitrary lines must be drawn, they can still be drawn at intervals to create bands, such that the consequences of being in any one band are not drastically different to being in the next one.


  • Options
    #75
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    As a general observation, arbitrary lines are acceptable when the consequences for those affected are less serious.
    Eg arbitrary searches of suspects are one thing, but arbitrary hangings are another.
    Those aren't arbitrary lines; those are arbitrary actions. Seriously, I know you're an intelligent person. Your habit of acting stupid in order to avoid intelligent discussion is pretty annoying.
    Regarding the unborn, my personal view is that they deserve protection on a sliding scale, from virtually none at conception to almost 100% just before birth.
    So a woman can have two thirds of an abortion at 12 weeks?
    If arbitrary lines must be drawn, they can still be drawn at intervals to create bands, such that the consequences of being in any one band are not drastically different to being in the next one.
    Which of these bands allow abortion, and how do you have bands with not-drastically-different consequences if some allow abortion and some don't?


  • Options
    #76
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    And the foetus doesn't know it's in Band B or C so can "breathe easy". We have arbitrary lines like this absolutely everywhere...

    One day you can commit a crime and only be tried as a child, the next day as an adult. The consequences are vastly different.


  • Options
    #77
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,986 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    murphaph wrote: »
    And the foetus doesn't know it's in Band B or C so can "breathe easy". We have arbitrary lines like this absolutely everywhere...

    One day you can commit a crime and only be tried as a child, the next day as an adult. The consequences are vastly different.

    that's not comparible to the issue of protections for the unborn though. either the unborn has rights or it doesn't. that's ultimately what it comes down to.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #78
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    end of the road wrote: »
    that's not comparible to the issue of protections for the unborn though. either the unborn has rights or it doesn't. that's ultimately what it comes down to.
    Are you being deliberately obtuse? An unborn human can have certain rights after a certain point, just like born humans have certain rights after equally arbitrary certain points (eg 16, 18 and 21).


  • Options
    #79
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    end of the road wrote: »
    that's not comparible to the issue of protections for the unborn though. either the unborn has rights or it doesn't. that's ultimately what it comes down to.

    It's that sort of refusal to accept the possibility of nuance that leads to objectively-daft outcomes like a fertilised egg having the same rights as a day-old infant.

    By the same token, either a person has rights or she doesn't, so it's wrong to deny the right to vote to a newborn infant. And yet, nobody is campaigning for the right of infants to vote, because that's ridiculous.

    If 70% of newborn infants died before the age of nine months, how many pro-lifers would shrug and accept that that's just the way it is? And yet they seem untroubled by such a high mortality rate among fertilised eggs, which some of them try to argue have exactly the same right to life as the newborns?


  • Options
    #80
    Andyfitzer
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭Andyfitzer


    uptherebels wrote: »
    But the point is that before a certain stage in development it is not a human. It is a bunch of cells that has the potential to develope into a human being.
    Yes you and I are a. Bunch of cells but with the add on of being sentient and self aware.

    Yes, but a day old baby is neither of those things either. Do you suggest it's OK to take their life too? I completely disagree. There is no line in the sand other than contraception or implantation that is anything other than arbitrary. You talk about developing, as if that is a negative toward giving them rights. We're all still developing, they are just at a different stage. They are human, alive, and developing - just like us. I believe the world needs to stop hiding behind this nonsense. We kill babies because we can, and they can't do anything about it. Rather than look after a child, which is hard work, we tell the lie that they are just a bunch of cells, so we can have the life we want. It is a cowardly stance. I would love to think otherwise, honestly. It cures so many things if it is morally right. Women's health issues, money problems, victims of rape...... loads. But to balance the life of one person against those things is wrong. Please convince me they are just a bunch of cells, I'd like to believe it.


  • Options
    #81
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Which of these bands allow abortion, and how do you have bands with not-drastically-different consequences if some allow abortion and some don't?
    Well yes, with abortion there is no middle ground.
    I'm suggesting that at one end of the spectrum, abortion only if the mother's life is genuinely at risk (as per our current laws).
    At the start of the spectrum, no questions asked abortion. For example, if the skiing holiday which the mother pre-booked 6 months in advance is at risk.
    At some other arbitrary point, abortion if the mothers health is at risk (as per UK laws)
    Maybe some other bands too, I don't know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Andyfitzer wrote: »
    Yes, but a day old baby is neither of those things either. Do you suggest it's OK to take their life too? I completely disagree. There is no line in the sand other than contraception or implantation that is anything other than arbitrary. You talk about developing, as if that is a negative toward giving them rights. We're all still developing, they are just at a different stage. They are human, alive, and developing - just like us. I believe the world needs to stop hiding behind this nonsense. We kill babies because we can, and they can't do anything about it. Rather than look after a child, which is hard work, we tell the lie that they are just a bunch of cells, so we can have the life we want. It is a cowardly stance. I would love to think otherwise, honestly. It cures so many things if it is morally right. Women's health issues, money problems, victims of rape...... loads. But to balance the life of one person against those things is wrong. Please convince me they are just a bunch of cells, I'd like to believe it.

    One does not necessarily need to believe it is just a bunch of cells to consider abortion to be a right that women should have in certain circumstances. I have a very simple view of the matter. For me what is inside the woman is pretty much irrelevant, it comes down to a conflict of rights. On the one hand we have the rights of the woman to have control over her body, and to have bodily autonomy, you know, like men have. On the other hand, there is an embryo, and later a foetus.

    In the very early stages, up to 12 or 14 weeks, what is in the woman's womb, whilst having some of the physical features of a human, has none of the qualities that we consider necessary for personhood. So at that stage I am quite happy for the woman's rights to trump any rights what is developing in her womb might have. So a woman can have an abortion for any reason she wants.

    As the foetus develops and gets closer to the date of delivery then its rights become stronger, up to the point, beyond 22 or 24 weeks where an abortion should only be allowed in the case of FFA or a risk to the woman's life or health. I am also conscious that in some circumstances a woman who was the victim of rape or some other kind of abuse may not have been able to seek an abortion earlier, so perhaps there need to be a mechanism whereby other reason for abortion may be allowed beyond the 22 or 24 week mark in exceptional circumstances.

    MrP


  • Options
    #83
    Andyfitzer
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭Andyfitzer


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's that sort of refusal to accept the possibility of nuance that leads to objectively-daft outcomes like a fertilised egg having the same rights as a day-old infant.

    By the same token, either a person has rights or she doesn't, so it's wrong to deny the right to vote to a newborn infant. And yet, nobody is campaigning for the right of infants to vote, because that's ridiculous.

    If 70% of newborn infants died before the age of nine months, how many pro-lifers would shrug and accept that that's just the way it is? And yet they seem untroubled by such a high mortality rate among fertilised eggs, which some of them try to argue have exactly the same right to life as the newborns?

    I've just read through your arguments, and it's exactly what I hoped to have when I started the thread. That and an analysis of the report from the committee (which has been ignored, but hey).
    As I said previously, I think it's hiding to say they are just a bunch of cells. Life is such an amazing and mystifying thing, countries are spending trillions looking for it on earth and beyond, and trying to understand it. To me, each life entering our universe must be like a big bang. A moment must be there like Frankenstein's monster, where life is there where it wasn't before. It can only be fertilisation. Everything else is development of the life. We are all developing, much like the zygote, foetus, embryo, whatever. These are just names of stages like adolescent and adult.
    Your arguments are excellent, but surely there is only one moment when life exists where it didn't?
    I agree about natural miscarriage. To call it natural abortion, though.... is that right? Does abortion not mean some outside agency stepping in? It is surely akin to heart attacks that take people earlier than others? Some bodies naturally more long term relationship than others? It's the fact that the foetus would be fine (miscarriage apart) that I have a problem with. Why can we step in to stop that life?
    Again, abortion is an excellent solution is real terms.... all issues sorted, except it's taking a life away. To me, unless the foetus is a danger to the life of the woman (like self defence laws), abortion is murder.
    I think these discussions I'm seeing are only bringing me more to that conclusion. I'm trying to be open to other opinions, though.
    What do you make of the Frankenstein's monster analogy?


  • Options
    #84
    Andyfitzer
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭Andyfitzer


    Nody wrote: »
    Then Dok I'm assuming you're donating all your money every month to the various rescue organizations to prevent starvation in Somalia, to help the refugees drowning in the Mediterranean etc. Since life is so previous to you all after all, it would not be acceptable for you to expect others to preserve life but you could not be bothered to do the same after all. So Dok and OP, can you please confirm you donate your full salary every month and spend nothing on frivolous things such as cars, travel, entertainment etc. to ensure you maximize the number of lives you save? Or if you don't why are you such hypocrites about making such sacrifices yourselves but expect others to make them (between medical risks, health costs, raising a child etc. it's not exactly risk free)?

    You do not deserve a reply, but you are the kind of person who turns people away who want real discussion. Personal attacks, especially unprovoked and unnecessary ones, are not welcome.


  • Options
    #85
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Andyfitzer wrote: »
    I've just read through your arguments, and it's exactly what I hoped to have when I started the thread. That and an analysis of the report from the committee (which has been ignored, but hey).
    As I said previously, I think it's hiding to say they are just a bunch of cells. Life is such an amazing and mystifying thing, countries are spending trillions looking for it on earth and beyond, and trying to understand it. To me, each life entering our universe must be like a big bang. A moment must be there like Frankenstein's monster, where life is there where it wasn't before. It can only be fertilisation. Everything else is development of the life. We are all developing, much like the zygote, foetus, embryo, whatever. These are just names of stages like adolescent and adult.
    Your arguments are excellent, but surely there is only one moment when life exists where it didn't?
    I agree about natural miscarriage. To call it natural abortion, though.... is that right? Does abortion not mean some outside agency stepping in? It is surely akin to heart attacks that take people earlier than others? Some bodies naturally more long term relationship than others? It's the fact that the foetus would be fine (miscarriage apart) that I have a problem with. Why can we step in to stop that life?
    Again, abortion is an excellent solution is real terms.... all issues sorted, except it's taking a life away. To me, unless the foetus is a danger to the life of the woman (like self defence laws), abortion is murder.
    I think these discussions I'm seeing are only bringing me more to that conclusion. I'm trying to be open to other opinions, though.
    What do you make of the Frankenstein's monster analogy?
    Are you ok with slaughtering animals for food? I mean most of the animals we eat have more self awareness than a 12 week human foetus.


  • Options
    #86
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,986 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    murphaph wrote: »
    Are you ok with slaughtering animals for food? I mean most of the animals we eat have more self awareness than a 12 week human foetus.

    not really a valid question given that many do see human life as being above that of animals rightly or wrongly.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #87
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    end of the road wrote: »
    not really a valid question given that many do see human life as being above that of animals rightly or wrongly.
    Yeah and many see a 12 week foetus as not a human life. See what I did there?


  • Options
    #88
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,986 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    murphaph wrote: »
    Yeah and many see a 12 week foetus as not a human life. See what I did there?

    i do, but a 12 week foetus is a human life so it's killing bar extreme circumstances is murder.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #89
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,017 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    end of the road wrote: »
    i do, but a 12 week foetus is a human life so it's killing bar extreme circumstances is murder.

    So why don't we ever do like in Central America and try women suspected of having provoked their own miscarriage? Wouldn't that be suspected murder? We already have the legal basis for it, after all.


  • Options
    #90
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    end of the road wrote: »
    i do, but a 12 week foetus is a human life so it's killing bar extreme circumstances is murder.

    It isn't murder, and that is quite clear.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    end of the road wrote: »
    i do, but a 12 week foetus is a human life so it's killing bar extreme circumstances is murder.
    Killing an animal for food is murder to many people but not to you or me. Killing a 12 week foetus is murder to you but not to me. Or do you not understand that your opinion is just your opinion and not an absolute truth?

    I seem to remember having equally frustrating discussions with you in other forums. I may just stop answering you if it carries on like this.


Advertisement