nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Andyfitzer

Looking back over my points, below, it's obvious I'm pro life, but I try to be open to other opinions due to the importance of the referendum. Please give me feedback if you so wish on the points I make. It's also my first post, so if I've made a rookie error like put it in the wrong section, I'd appreciate a prompt.

I have read his report and it has made me so angry.

There is absolutely no recognition of the human rights the unborn child has. None. Not even a recognition that they have any. They are in the current legislation, but will be entirely stripped away if this bill passes. The right to life being number one.

There is some emotive language used when addressing the woman - compassionate, devastating diagnosis, mental distress - thereby acknowledging her humanity. There is only cold medical language used to describe the human in the womb- termination of pregnancy. The only time they are talked about in any kind of human way is in listing the categories where it should be legal to take their lives, sorry -"terminate". They are called the unborn child then.

This report is as one sided as it is possible to be, persistently discussing the health care that the woman should be receiving, _totally_ ignoring the human they are carrying.

It is logically flawed. One of the main reasons given to allow abortion is the fact that women are going to England to have abortions and ordering online abortifacients. This means they are legalising something because women are doing it anyway. Are we going to have legal drugs and prostitution now, because people go to Holland anyway, or do it illegally here already? Legal fraud, because people do it already? That is ludicrous logic. I'm appalled that people in power cannot see that the law should be logical and moral, not "if you can't beat them, join 'em"!!!! If abortion is illegal, and they break the law, arrest them. Don't capitulate, enforce. If there are real reasons to legalise, fine, but for this?

Also, the main reason for allowing abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, is so that one of the smallest of "categories" by percentages - pregnancy from rape (don't get me wrong, an horrific thing all round) - don't have to report it. I have huge sympathy with women who have been raped, nevermind then finding they are pregnant. But to jump to abortion on demand for everyone from there is crazy.

The second biggest reason was that a lot of things, like diagnoses, were difficult (that word was used a lot). Shrug your shoulders and just kill all the unborn!!!!!!!!! Easy, hey!?

The committee has been accused of bias throughout this process. They started by voting to repeal before hearing any pro life contributors. That, I presume to be due to the UN ruling on FFA. No need to legislate for any other reason for abortion, so, but they recommended to anyway. Ms Noone's tweet to wrap up the process (Been an absolute privilege & honour to chair a committee of such hard working and committed politicians. My hope is for a mature & calm debate in which all views are heard & above all that we continue to look at the facts & daily reality of women's healthcare), only mentioned women - as does her report. Interestingly, the list of contributors in the index doesn't include why they were invited, just a note to look for the transcripts. Appears to be an attempt to hide the fact so few pro life contributors were invited.

This debate is naturally extremely biased, as it is. Those born humans can tweet, ring radio stations, harass politicians etc. Those unborn humans rely on others. We are motivated by good will, whereas "pro choice" (pro abortion) are personally motivated and will scream and shout, as are entitled. The committee and media don't need to increase that chasm.

I do welcome the inclusion at the end of recommendations for increased spending on, and the provision of, things like contraception, education and mental health counselling. The reality is that if the report is ratified by the public, the government will agree, but not bring them in because the budget has all gone on the referendum and the abortions. In a few years we will only have the abortions and some other political football will distract the politicians.

This report is _totally_ and _utterly_ skewed to the woman and pro choice. I am seething that we will have no recognition of the human rights of the unborn, and therefore thousands of lives taken just because we can - candy/life from a baby.

Where is the choice of the human in the womb? Where is the acknowledgement of the responsibilities of the man and woman - who exercised their right to consensual sex - toward the human they create? Where is the will to de-stigmatise reporting of rape? Where is the logic disappearing to? Where are the human rights of the unborn human? Will they only have the right to remain silent?

Please, put me straight if I'm not seeing this right. It's too important to be closed to argument. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Gunmonkey

end of the road wrote: »

exactly. hence the vote should be to keep the 8th, as by removing it we are removing the rights of the unborn to life, and we are allowing for something that isn't a right (abortion on demand)

Well you could argue that it is also returning a right to all women their right to choose what happens to their own body.

Because a lot of the pro-life arguments scream "we know whats best for women, their opinion doesnt count!". Or how they trumpet up their opinion as more important than the mental/physical/mortal well being of the majority of the females on this island.

end of the road

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Well you could argue that it is also returning a right to all women their right to choose what happens to their own body.

i'm afraid not as the right for women to do what they want with their own body has been upheld for a long time now. abortion isn't a woman doing what she wants with her body, it's killing another human being, hence your argument doesn't hold water as one doesn't have an actual right to kill the unborn within this state bar absolute extreme circumstances. even traveling to procure abortion isn't an actual right, you just have the right to travel.

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Because a lot of the pro-life arguments scream "we know whats best for women, their opinion doesnt count!". Or how they trumpet up their opinion as more important than the mental/physical/mortal well being of the majority of the females on this island.

the rights of the unborn come before someone wanting to kill it just because. we do allow abortion in extreme circumstances and that could possibly be extended to include a couple of the circumstances missing such as FFA. we have (all be it isn't perfect) a mental health system to deal with mental health issues, we don't need abortion on demand in our country, and abortion on demand does not solve mental health issues.

MrPudding

end of the road wrote: »

i'm afraid not as the right for women to do what they want with their own body has been upheld for a long time now. abortion isn't a woman doing what she wants with her body, it's killing another human being, hence your argument doesn't hold water as one doesn't have an actual right to kill the unborn within this state bar absolute extreme circumstances. even traveling to procure abortion isn't an actual right, you just have the right to travel.

the rights of the unborn come before someone wanting to kill it just because. we do allow abortion in extreme circumstances and that could possibly be extended to include a couple of the circumstances missing such as FFA. we have (all be it isn't perfect) a mental health system to deal with mental health issues, we don't need abortion on demand in our country, and abortion on demand does not solve mental health issues.

OK, will try this one again, but I guess you will do the usual and not answer it, saying it is a hypothetical, it could never happen etc. This is a thought experiment from a book by Julian Baggini. it isn't word for word, but you will get the idea.

Now, this is a thought experiment. That means it isn't necessarily something that is likely to happen, or even that could happen. The purpose of it is to make you think about a particular thing from a different angle, one perhaps you have not considered before. I would be really interested in your answer, if you consider it honestly. Here it is...

You are out celebrating one night with friends, and you have a little too much to drink. You get separated from your mates and stagger home, thing are a little hazy and you kind of black out.

The next day you wake up and you ar ein a strange place. You are on a bed and you have a couple of tubes in your arm. One of the tubes to to a machine, on the other side of the machine is another bed with another person, also connected to the machine.

Someone in a white coat comes quickly to your bedside. He introduces himself as a doctor, and explains what is going on. Last night you volunteered for a medical procedure. The person in the bed next to you has a disease that means his kidneys are not working properly. Traditional dialysis is no longer sufficient for him. A new treatment has been developed whereby the person is connected to someone with healthy kidneys, and those healthy kidneys take over from the sick person's kidneys. Results have been very promising and there is a very good chance that after 9 months the sick person's kidneys will have recovered completely and the person will be able to lead a normal life with no need for dialysis.

If you are disconnected from the person, they will die. Regardless of how you have come to be in the situation you now find yourself in, do you think it is fair for you to be kept in this position for the next 9 months?

Leaving the thought experiment aside, just think about how your right to body integrity works. Donating a pint of blood is, at worst, a minor inconvenience for the vast majority of people. Yet, no one can be compelled to even donate a pint of blood against their will, even if someone will die as a result. Even where that someone is a born person, perhaps a mother with children, maybe a doctor, or a Nobel Prize winner, or maybe just an ordinary person. Doesn't matter. No one can be compelled give a pint of blood, that will delay them for 30 minutes, and their own body will replace free of charge in a matter of weeks. What is it about something that doesn't even have a nervous system that means a grown woman can be forced to carry it against her will for 9 months, but you can't be forced to give a pint of blood to save a Nobel Laureate?

MrP

end of the road

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, will try this one again, but I guess you will do the usual and not answer it, saying it is a hypothetical, it could never happen etc. This is a thought experiment from a book by Julian Baggini. it isn't word for word, but you will get the idea.

Now, this is a thought experiment. That means it isn't necessarily something that is likely to happen, or even that could happen. The purpose of it is to make you think about a particular thing from a different angle, one perhaps you have not considered before. I would be really interested in your answer, if you consider it honestly. Here it is...

You are out celebrating one night with friends, and you have a little too much to drink. You get separated from your mates and stagger home, thing are a little hazy and you kind of black out.

The next day you wake up and you ar ein a strange place. You are on a bed and you have a couple of tubes in your arm. One of the tubes to to a machine, on the other side of the machine is another bed with another person, also connected to the machine.

Someone in a white coat comes quickly to your bedside. He introduces himself as a doctor, and explains what is going on. Last night you volunteered for a medical procedure. The person in the bed next to you has a disease that means his kidneys are not working properly. Traditional dialysis is no longer sufficient for him. A new treatment has been developed whereby the person is connected to someone with healthy kidneys, and those healthy kidneys take over from the sick person's kidneys. Results have been very promising and there is a very good chance that after 9 months the sick person's kidneys will have recovered completely and the person will be able to lead a normal life with no need for dialysis.

If you are disconnected from the person, they will die. Regardless of how you have come to be in the situation you now find yourself in, do you think it is fair for you to be kept in this position for the next 9 months?

Leaving the thought experiment aside, just think about how your right to body integrity works. Donating a pint of blood is, at worst, a minor inconvenience for the vast majority of people. Yet, no one can be compelled to even donate a pint of blood against their will, even if someone will die as a result. Even where that someone is a born person, perhaps a mother with children, maybe a doctor, or a Nobel Prize winner, or maybe just an ordinary person. Doesn't matter. No one can be compelled give a pint of blood, that will delay them for 30 minutes, and their own body will replace free of charge in a matter of weeks. What is it about something that doesn't even have a nervous system that means a grown woman can be forced to carry it against her will for 9 months, but you can't be forced to give a pint of blood to save a Nobel Laureate?

MrP

because the unborn isn't in the position to consent to their slaughter/destruction, so therefore we have to implement protections via the law for them bar absolute extreme circumstances.
ultimately we can't force blood or organ donation as there are too many variables such as suitability of the organs and blood.

MrPudding

end of the road wrote: »

because the unborn isn't in the position to consent to their slaughter/destruction, so therefore we have to implement protections via the law for them bar absolute extreme circumstances.
ultimately we can't force blood or organ donation as there are too many variables such as suitability of the organs and blood.

Of all the cop-out answers I have seen you give, this one probably takes the award for most cop outy. Seriously, that is your answer, it's complicated? Does the person needing the blood consent to their death? And actually, you raise a good point here, the foetus can't consent. it can't consent as it has neither the awareness nor the faculties to consent, on account of it lacking all the qualities we require in order for something to be considered a person, apart from a heartbeat. Unlike, for example, the Nobel Laureate that needs your blood, that you can't be forced to donate.

And I guess this means you won't answer the thought experiment...?

MrP

Itssoeasy

Honestly is there a need to use the word slaugher ? This issue is going to be emotionally charged as it is, and using language like that I feel won't help anyone.

oscarBravo

end of the road wrote: »

...it's imposing a rule that protects the right of a human being to live.

A zygote is not a human being. If you won't accept that objective fact, there's literally no point trying to discuss anything with you.

end of the road

MrPudding wrote: »

actually, you raise a good point here, the foetus can't consent. it can't consent as it has neither the awareness nor the faculties to consent, on account of it lacking all the qualities we require in order for something to be considered a person, apart from a heartbeat.

MrP

that is why it's rights have to be protected via the law and the constitution. because it has no voice, and it needs something to look out for and uphold it's right to life.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Honestly is there a need to use the word slaugher ? This issue is going to be emotionally charged as it is, and using language like that I feel won't help anyone.

but that's exactly what it is . i know people find that reality uncomfortable but we cannot shy away from what abortion ultimately is

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

MrPudding wrote: »

actually, you raise a good point here, the foetus can't consent. it can't consent as it has neither the awareness nor the faculties to consent, on account of it lacking all the qualities we require in order for something to be considered a person, apart from a heartbeat.

MrP

that is why it's rights have to be protected via the law and the constitution. because it has no voice, and it needs something to look out for and uphold it's right to life.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Honestly is there a need to use the word slaugher ? This issue is going to be emotionally charged as it is, and using language like that I feel won't help anyone.

but that's exactly what it is . i know people find that reality uncomfortable but we cannot shy away from what abortion ultimately is

Well I don't think language like that will help undecided voters, and EOTR this vote will be very close I think and will help no one.

I honestly think both sides of this debate will not come out of this process well. This despite the talk that it will be a respectful campaign(which it won't be) and by the end of this year the debate will still be going on.

Consonata

end of the road wrote:

i'm afraid not as the right for women to do what they want with their own body has been upheld for a long time now. abortion isn't a woman doing what she wants with her body, it's killing another human being, hence your argument doesn't hold water as one doesn't have an actual right to kill the unborn within this state bar absolute extreme circumstances. even traveling to procure abortion isn't an actual right, you just have the right to travel.

It isn't considered killing another human being though is it? We have made a decision as a society to not charge people procuring illegal abortions with murder have we not? We don't charge them at all. Now unless you wish to throw women into jail for 30 years to life for having an abortions in Birmingham, your argument doesn't hold any water.

end of the road

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well I don't think language like that will help undecided voters, and EOTR this vote will be very close I think and will help no one.

I honestly think both sides of this debate will not come out of this process well. This despite the talk that it will be a respectful campaign(which it won't be) and by the end of this year the debate will still be going on.

i agree both sides of this will not come out well, this will be a very bitter campaign.

Hotblack Desiato

Andyfitzer wrote: »

Life is such an amazing and mystifying thing

Yes

countries are spending trillions looking for it on earth and beyond

No they're not.

Hotblack Desiato

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's quite a strange conclusion. "Before the egg is fertilised there is no life, so after the egg is fertilised we can't say for certain there's life until it's born".

Surely, the logical conclusion of your position should be that once the egg is fertilised it has become a life, since its natural progression is to become a life barring any catastrophe that would kill it?

No that's not a logical conclusion at all, and the Supreme Court in Ireland, even with the 8th amendment in place, does not agree with that position.

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.

But that is what the three amigos on the Dail committee were saying.

volchitsa wrote: »

Would you be as relaxed about unexplained deaths of thousands of actual children every year?

When born children were in the care of the catholic church, society didn't seem to care that much. Odd that.

Hotblack Desiato

Consonata wrote: »

It isn't considered killing another human being though is it? We have made a decision as a society to not charge people procuring illegal abortions with murder have we not? We don't charge them at all. Now unless you wish to throw women into jail for 30 years to life for having an abortions in Birmingham, your argument doesn't hold any water.

POLDPA which was oh so controversial several government TDs felt compelled to resign, only four years ago, did not define abortion as murder.

The 1861 Offences Against The Person Act, which POLDPA replaced... guess what... didn't define abortion as murder either. Murder resulted in hanging, abortion was a separate offence which 'merely' resulted in a life sentence. Those damn immoral Victorians still saw a difference between a foetus and a born human.

Those still not convinced should look to their bible (both Jews and the Roman Catholic Church regarded first trimester abortion as perfectly acceptable according to scripture - until the RCC changed its position by papal decree in the latter half of the 19th century) - or perhaps read up on St. Brigid.:rolleyes:

"A certain woman who had taken the vow of chastity fell, through youthful desire of pleasure and her womb swelled with child. Brigid, exercising the most potent strength of her ineffable faith, blessed her, causing the child to disappear, without coming to birth, and without pain. She faithfully returned the woman to health and to penance."

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

Now, this is a thought experiment. That means it isn't necessarily something that is likely to happen, or even that could happen. The purpose of it is to make you think about a particular thing from a different angle, one perhaps you have not considered before. I would be really interested in your answer, if you consider it honestly. Here it is...

You are out celebrating one night with friends, and you have a little too much to drink. You get separated from your mates and stagger home, thing are a little hazy and you kind of black out.

The next day you wake up and you ar ein a strange place. You are on a bed and you have a couple of tubes in your arm. One of the tubes to to a machine, on the other side of the machine is another bed with another person, also connected to the machine.

Someone in a white coat comes quickly to your bedside. He introduces himself as a doctor, and explains what is going on. Last night you volunteered for a medical procedure. The person in the bed next to you has a disease that means his kidneys are not working properly. Traditional dialysis is no longer sufficient for him. A new treatment has been developed whereby the person is connected to someone with healthy kidneys, and those healthy kidneys take over from the sick person's kidneys. Results have been very promising and there is a very good chance that after 9 months the sick person's kidneys will have recovered completely and the person will be able to lead a normal life with no need for dialysis.

If you are disconnected from the person, they will die. Regardless of how you have come to be in the situation you now find yourself in, do you think it is fair for you to be kept in this position for the next 9 months?

Leaving the thought experiment aside, just think about how your right to body integrity works. Donating a pint of blood is, at worst, a minor inconvenience for the vast majority of people. Yet, no one can be compelled to even donate a pint of blood against their will, even if someone will die as a result. Even where that someone is a born person, perhaps a mother with children, maybe a doctor, or a Nobel Prize winner, or maybe just an ordinary person. Doesn't matter. No one can be compelled give a pint of blood, that will delay them for 30 minutes, and their own body will replace free of charge in a matter of weeks. What is it about something that doesn't even have a nervous system that means a grown woman can be forced to carry it against her will for 9 months, but you can't be forced to give a pint of blood to save a Nobel Laureate?
MrP

If you had signed the permission slip/contract in that situation, then you can't just get up and leave, if doing so kills the other patient.

If you had been abducted and forced into that situation, then the situation is less clear. That's why abortion for rape victims is a lot more acceptable to the general public than abortion in other cases.

The blood transfusion analogy is a complete red herring. Hospitals don't force people to donate blood, nor do they forcibly impregnate people.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

If you had signed the permission slip/contract in that situation, then you can't just get up and leave, if doing so kills the other patient.

If you had been abducted and forced into that situation, then the situation is less clear. That's why abortion for rape victims is a lot more acceptable to the general public than abortion in other cases.

The blood transfusion analogy is a complete red herring. Hospitals don't force people to donate blood, nor do they forcibly impregnate people.

No, the "complete red herring" is the idea that having sex is anything like giving consent to become a parent. Pregnancy is one possible consequence of sex. Just like smoking has a risk of causing lung cancer or if you go climbing you are not consenting to fall and break your neck, nor even to get lost and have to call out the rescue services.

And then there are the people who use contraception - clearly they had no intention of pregnancy or parenthood.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

No, the "complete red herring" is the idea that having sex is anything like giving consent to become a parent.

That's an interesting thought.

I suppose if you take that argument further, you could extend it to child maintenance. No man should ever be chased by the courts for money to support a child he never agreed to have?

Your argument is basically about one person abdicating all responsibilities to other people.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

That's an interesting thought.

I suppose if you take that argument further, you could extend it to child maintenance. No man should ever be chased by the courts for money to support a child he never agreed to have?

You could but the child actually exists, so society has decided that the consequences of denying an existing child its rights to parental support are too important for all of us as a whole to let its parents renege on their responsibilities to it.

The alternative would be to have some children growing up in the streets with no care or education, and that obviously isn't good for any of us, least of all the child, the adult he will become and most of all perhaps the society he will be living in. A recipe for social ills IMO.

recedite wrote: »

Your argument is basically about one person abdicating all responsibilities to other people.

Not sure what you mean. Like adoption? Or like a smoker expecting medical care for his lung cancer? Or like providing emergency services even to people who fall asleep drunk with a cigarette in their hands or who just forget to watch the chip pan?

We abdicate or delegate responsibilities all the time, but I don't think deciding to terminate a pregnancy that you never intended to have in the first place really comes under any of that. It is, after all, the person/couple themselves dealing with the situation.

Having the child and then giving it away - now that's abdicating responsibility. Would you ban adoption for that reason?

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

..society has decided that the consequences of denying an existing child its rights to parental support are too important ..

The "right" to parental support is surely a weaker right than the right to life itself?
Especially in a society where there are more childless parents wanting to adopt babies than there are babies available for adoption.

Andyfitzer

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ad hominem. You're squirming away from addressing my "interesting points" by criticising me instead of my arguments. That's a sure-fire indication that you can't attack those arguments with reason, so you're resorting to butt-hurt.

The belief that a fertilised egg is a person is irrational because (among other reasons) a fertilised egg can become two people. You hand-wave this away by describing it as "interesting" but refuse to engage with it because you're cross with me for not being nice enough to you.

If my "belief" can be treated as irrational, kindly point out what about it is irrational, ideally without ad-hominem attacks. My "version of morality" doesn't require forcing women to be pregnant against their will. If you personally believe that a fertilised egg is a person, and choose not to have an abortion on that basis, that's completely fine: it's called choice. If you take that belief and use it as the basis for voting for a situation where someone else is denied a choice, that's not fine, and you are imposing your views on others.

I don't care what your beliefs are, until your beliefs translate into a vote for taking rights away from people who objectively are human beings. Then your beliefs - or, more accurately, the actions informed by your beliefs - are subject to criticism. Ad hominem.

Let's address (rather than skirt around) my "interesting point": if a fertilised egg is a person, how can it become two people?

Firstly, let me say wrt this Ad hominem you love to use. You started it. Saying I am desperate to add something to my argument that you propose I don't believe myself is attacking my moral fibre. As is saying my motivation is to impose my beliefs on others. As I have said from the outset, these are what I hold to be true, but I want debate to either solidify my position or turn it around.

Secondly, my sincere apologies for merely saying your posts were interesting, and only insinuating that I need to consider them. I now know I must fawn over them and stroke your ego.

I also think you failed to notice my replies to your post which I pointed out I accidentally included in the quoted section, because as I mentioned I'm new to boards and thought that's how you quote sections separately.

To actually reply to one of your points about twins: perhaps, they are one person/entity that clones. It sounds farcical, but Occam's razor might suggest it. Something to consider, I'm not trying to force it on you.

Lastly, this is a discussion, not a battle. The entire tone of your answers so far is of condescension. Be it saying I am desperate, or using Latin phrases few know. I am happy to hear your points, as they are ones I've not encountered before, and have me thinking.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

If you had signed the permission slip/contract in that situation, then you can't just get up and leave, if doing so kills the other patient.

That's not correct. Consent is always ongoing as far as is possible. Up until the patient is placed under anaesthetic, they can revoke their consent at any time.

"Permission" slips effectively empower the medical facility to act where the patient is not conscious, such as DNR waivers, etc. While a patient is conscious and compos mentis, they retain full control over their consent, regardless of anything they may have written or signed.

The only exception to this rule is the power of the clinician to act to save the patient's life in an emergency. Even then there would be a lot of paperwork if the patient explicitly told the doctor to stop.

recedite

Andyfitzer wrote: »

To actually reply to one of your points about twins: perhaps, they are one person/entity that clones.

Very good answer.
A clone or a twin starts becoming a second person due to the different experiences after separation.

BTW I suggest to you that the best way to interact on boards is to ignore any perceived personal attacks or negative "tone" in others, and just stick to the point yourself.

seamus wrote: »

That's not correct. Consent is always ongoing as far as is possible. Up until the patient is placed under anaesthetic, they can revoke their consent at any time.

Yes, but in your scenario the two patients were already hooked up.
If I offer to donate a kidney, I can't decide to take it back afterwards. Or change my mind halfway through the operation.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Very good answer.
A clone or a twin starts becoming a second person due to the different experiences after separation.

BTW I suggest to you that the best way to interact on boards is to ignore any perceived personal attacks or negative "tone" in others, and just stick to the point yourself.

Yes, but in your scenario the two patients were already hooked up.
If I offer to donate a kidney, I can't decide to take it back afterwards. Or change my mind halfway through the operation.

Twins are not clones, that's quite a strange and indeed offensive thing to say of them. They are two separate people with their own personalities and desires.

That this fact rather destroys your claim that a single person is created at fertilization should lead you to query that belief, instead of retrofitting nonsensical views about twins so as to maintain that belief.

As for the organ donation thing, that's exactly why a vague agreement is worth nothing, and consent to sex cannot be considered as anything like the degree of consent required before one donates an organ.

This assumption that sex =consent to be a parent is outdated and simply wrong.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

Twins are not clones, that's quite a strange and indeed offensive thing to say of them. They are two separate people with their own personalities and desires.

Clones are also separate people

Seriously, you need to read up on it a bit more before criticising.
Or watch that movie where the guy had all his clones living in the tree house.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but in your scenario the two patients were already hooked up.
If I offer to donate a kidney, I can't decide to take it back afterwards. Or change my mind halfway through the operation.

It's not my scenario, but nevertheless if the two patients are already hooked up, yes you can still withdraw consent at any point.

You could change your mind halfway through a donation procedure. Let's say they had opened you up, were just about to disconnect your kidney and you suddenly woke up and told them to stop. They would have to stop.

Donation of a kidney is not really a relevant analogue since there's a very definite point at which the kidney is no longer yours and you no longer have control over it.

The point stands either way; if another human being was connected to you and dependent on you for life, no amount of permission slips or contracts could prevent you from changing your mind and disconnecting, even if it were to result in their death.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Clones are also separate people
Seriously, you need to read up on it a bit more before criticising.
Or watch that movie where the guy had all his clones living in the tree house.

Oh right, I mean, now I see.

Err, you get that clones don't exist, right? And that one of the reasons it's against the law to go too far down that road of cloning humans is precisely because it's unclear what their legal status would be wrt their original "owner".

To take your "that film where the guy..." example, that would be a serious crime if those were not "his" clones.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

Err, you get that clones don't exist, right?

Not human ones anyway, yet.
Or at least, not in the west anyway. In China, I wouldn't be too sure.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

You could change your mind halfway through a donation procedure. Let's say they had opened you up, were just about to disconnect your kidney and you suddenly woke up and told them to stop. They would have to stop.

I'm not sure about that. If the other guy was also opened up, then he/she is at risk and is owed something I think.
But I agree we are stretching this analogy a bit too far.

seamus wrote: »

there's a very definite point at which the kidney is no longer yours and you no longer have control over it.

There is also a definite point at which an egg cell is no longer just the mother, but also contains a component of the father. At this point, it is already on track to being its own unique and independent person.

However, the point at which the mother "no longer has control over it" would be another few years :pac:

Andyfitzer

volchitsa wrote: »

Twins are not clones, that's quite a strange and indeed offensive thing to say of them. They are two separate people with their own personalities and desires.

That this fact rather destroys your claim that a single person is created at fertilization should lead you to query that belief, instead of retrofitting nonsensical views about twins so as to maintain that belief.
.

I agree, as I said quite clearly, it might be something to consider. Remember me typing that? I've not got a clear handle on it yet. I think you'll find identical twins could be considered clones. One cell becomes two separate beings. Shared DNA. I didn't say they aren't separate people with their own thoughts, as you seem to have concluded.

oscarBravo

Andyfitzer wrote: »

To actually reply to one of your points about twins: perhaps, they are one person/entity that clones. It sounds farcical, but Occam's razor might suggest it. Something to consider, I'm not trying to force it on you.

Identical twins are not clones. Their DNA, while almost identical, is still measurably different. They are distinct people, with distinct legal personalities, and with a complete - not shared - set of human rights.

They started out as a single fertilised egg. At some point after that, they each became a person. The religion-informed view is that personhood happens at the moment of conception, which means that those twins were once one person, but now are two people.

Think about that logically for a second. If conception is the only point when personhood begins, then there's no future point at which a second person can have come into being, which means that identical twins are, in fact, just one person.

When you encounter an apparent contradiction, the logical thing to do is to check your premise. The wooliest premise in this case is personhood-from-conception: there's no scientific basis for it; it's just a personal belief.

So, logically, a fertilised egg isn't a person, but a child after birth is. That means that at some point during pregnancy, a clump of cells becomes a person. When does it legally become a person? At birth, generally speaking.

Now, those are my views, but they are views that have been arrived at by analysing the facts as best I can determine or understand them. You may have different views, but unless you can come up with a better analysis than "I dunno, clones?", I'm confident that my views make more objective sense than yours.