Ash.J.Williams wrote: » Life begins at conception and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.. And I'm pro choice.
Hannibal_Smith wrote: » Christians have done such horrific things to actual living things, why have an issue with abortion?
Hannibal_Smith wrote: » Pro abortion lobby...does it have to be an us vs them scenario? Can we all not remember the humanity at the centre of it all and just vote they way you want, without slinging mud at the other?
EirWatchr wrote: » end of the road has it by the same right as you have to declare who/what is not a person by your opinion. Unrestricted abortion in the first trimester is legal in Europe because (as the committee has heard) there is no legal definition yet of when a life begins (and on which abortion could later be contested). You seem to know better than the law.
end of the road wrote: » i don't remember saying that the foetus is a person just yet. it's definitely a human being and a life, and it will eventually be a person, and on that basis i believe that it needs rights and still deserves protection. it's not about dictating, it's about the fact that bar extreme circumstances, killing the unborn has no justification and i believe it's best for society that such should not be provided for within the state. allowing an unrestricted and on demand abortion is a step to far in terms of liberalism and it's good that we have a cross section of people both religious and non-religious who agree.
smacl wrote: » But when you say something is a matter of fact 'for me', how exactly is that any different from a matter of opinion. What fact establishes that the foetus is a person yet the implanted ovum or embryo is not? My opinion is that the foetus in the first trimester is not as yet a person. Gven that unrestricted abortion in the first trimester is legal in most of Europe, this would seem to be a very widely held opinion. What makes what you hold to be true a matter of fact and what other people hold to be true a matter of opinion? Until such time as you can establish this, what right have you to dictate how women should deal with their pregnancies?
end of the road wrote: » whatever about personhood, the stage at when the unborn should have rights is for me a matter of fact. they should have such from the minute they begin to grow. i believe that to be right and just.
smacl wrote: » This is exactly my point. You disagree with me on the first point as you consider the unborn to be a person whereas I and many others do not. You disagree with the Vatican on the second point as they consider the freshly implanted ovum to be a person whereas you and many others do not. What this illustrates is that the stage in a pregnancy at which a the new person comes into being and should be accorded human rights is a matter of personal opinion to a large extent, and not a matter of fact.
end of the road wrote: » i disagree that "dictating" that the unborn cannot be killed unless it is within extreme circumstances is unreasonable. i believe it's very reasonable. after all, we have laws in general against the killing of other human beings and we have such for good reason. i would disagree that the morning after pill is a form of abortion. for me it's not about when the unborn becomes a person exactly, it's about insuring it's rights to develop and grow are upheld once it begins doing so.
smacl wrote: » Just because you don't have an explicitly stated right to do something doesn't mean that preventing someone else from doing that thing isn't breaching their rights. You do not have the right to dictate how other people behave purely on the basis that it is a bad fit for your moral code. While I appreciate you take a more secular stance than many on this forum, a large part of the argument coming from a number of Christians on this site is that they are against abortion because it runs contrary to Christian morality. I'm fine with that, insofar as people can and do live to their own moral standards. What is unreasonable is attempting to force others to adhere to moral standards they find objectionable and fundamentally disagree with, where sexuality and reproduction tend to be one of the larger areas of disagreement. As you've pointed out, the crux of this argument centres around the point at which you consider a fertilised human ovum to be a person. Catholic dogma would suggest at point of implantation, others might suggest it is when the foetus becomes viable, etc... such that it is a philosophical (or religious) position rather than a matter of fact. Do you not feel that by taking a pro-life stance you're riding rough-shod over someone else's equally valid position on this in favour of your own position? If not, do you consider your belief as to when a foetus becomes a person the only correct one, where everyone else's belief to be wrong? The Vatican for example have declared the morning after pill to be a form of abortion, are they wrong?
Nick Park wrote: » The ECHR has ruled that there is no such thing as a human right to an abortion. No core human rights treaty refers to the right to have an abortion
Nick Park wrote: » It's hardly goal post moving to point out a fact about human rights. Stating an inconvenient truth does not equate to moving goal posts.
Nick Park wrote: » My exchange with Je Suis Jean was to challenge his intolerant and undemocratic proposal. That seems reasonable.
Nick Park wrote: » And I agree wholeheartedly that the 8th amendment should never have been interpreted in a way that restricted the human right to travel.
Nick Park wrote: » I certainly agree that people should be free of cruel and degrading treatment. I don't think I've ever suggested otherwise..
NuMarvel wrote: » There's the goal post moving again. I said nothing in my post about a human right to abortion, or legislating for unlimited abortion. And your exchange with Je Suis Jean doesn't refer to the thread subject at all. I was applying your logic, that we removed travel from the scope of the 8th because it breached human rights, to other human rights.
You said yourself, that we "do not promote one person's human rights by restricting another person's human rights.". We have two clear examples of the human right to be free of cruel and degrading treatment being restricted, so it logically follows that you'd agree our abortion laws shouldn't impinge this right in the same way it doesn't impinge the right to travel.
But instead of agreeing, or disagreeing and setting out your reasons why, you’ve chosen instead to evade and deflect. Which is basically the same as disagreeing but having no rationale to back up your stance.
Nick Park wrote: » The ECHR has ruled that there is no such thing as a human right to an abortion. No core human rights treaty refers to the right to have an abortion. Ireland has certainly been criticised for the way in which our laws have been applied, and that would certainly be relevant if this thread were discussing whether there should be any change whatsoever to our laws and the way they are applied. But, as you well know, this thread is actually about whether Christians can vote for unlimited abortion. Refusing to legislate for unlimited abortion does not constitute cruel, degrading or unusual treatment.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » If you truly believed that you would have no issue with the country preventing people travelling to have an abortion just as the country currently prevents people from travelling if they know they are on their way to commit a murder, smuggle drugs or join ISIS etc. Next time someone is stopped at the airport on their way to commit a crime all they need say to the Gardai is "No, you can't stop me because I read on a Boards thread a comment by Nick Park who knows loads about stuff that the freedom to travel means you can't stop me on my way to commit a crime" Are you familiar with the concept of "attempt" in criminal law? "attempted offenses occur when an individual has an actual intent to commit a crime (in legal terms, specific intent), and takes direct action toward completion of the crime." If you are travelling to England to have an abortion you are attempting to commit an offence as the constitution is currently framed. The right to travel, like the right to freedom is subject to you not being engaged in or have intent to commit a criminal act. Do you still think we should have a law which prohibits abortion on demand but through lack of enforcement all it does is add the cost of return flights and some significant personal inconvenience to the process thus enabling women with complete carte blanche to travel to England to have their abortion without any fear whatsoever of any consequence on their return? You do like to make a lot of stuff up don't you? So your suggestion is that the choice should be abortion on demand in Ireland is unlawful but if you want to have one you can as there are no consequences providing that in one of your most stressful times of need and support you take a flight over to England where you can find your way in a strange city to a clinic you've never been to before where people you've never met before will carry out the abortion after which you'll have to fly back to Ireland because that way we can say this is a country of christian values and there's no on demand abortion here. Nice.
NuMarvel wrote: » The human rights approach supports the call for further change in our abortion laws. The UNDHR, as well as other UN treaties, also guarantees the right to be free of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 5 of the UNDHR). But Ireland has twice been cited by UN bodies in recent years for contravening these rights. And the source of those contraventions is our abortion law, which is set out in line with the 8th. If we’ve already changed our constitution to ensure the 8th doesn’t restrict the human right to freedom of travel, then it follows we also need to change our constitution to ensure it doesn’t restrict the right to be free of cruel, degrading, or unusual treatment. Our legislation (eg the PLDP Act) and regulations would need to follow suit.
Nick Park wrote: » It does make perfect sense if you take human rights treaties seriously. The right to travel is guaranteed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I, and many other people, believe that our country should not be complicit in the taking of human life and should, as far as practicable, defend the right to life of the unborn child. Removing the human right of freedom of movement is not practicable. You do not promote one person's human rights by restricting another person's human rights. This is why, for example, most of us see torture as unacceptable even if it purports to save lives. I realise that there are those (active in this thread) who want to portray concern for one group's human rights as somehow not caring for another group of people. That is bogus. My position is to seek a state of affairs that respects the human rights of all, and to do so in a way that is educational and compassionate rather than punitive or judgemental. You are free to disagree with me, but you betray your own intolerance when you advocate a denial of my democratic right to vote for options that express my views. Your proposal, in seeking to force people to choose between two bad options is, sadly, typical of the confrontational approach that wants the debate over the 8th amendment to be one of misrepresentation, name-calling and intolerance.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » So your suggestion is that the choice should be abortion on demand in Ireland is unlawful but if you want to have one you can as there are no consequences providing that in one of your most stressful times of need and support you take a flight over to England where you can find your way in a strange city to a clinic you've never been to before where people you've never met before will carry out the abortion after which you'll have to fly back to Ireland because that way we can say this is a country of christian values and there's no on demand abortion here. Nice.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » If you truly believed that you would have no issue with the country preventing people travelling to have an abortion just as the country currently prevents people from travelling if they know they are on their way to commit a murder, smuggle drugs or join ISIS etc. Next time someone is stopped at the airport on their way to commit a crime all they need say to the Gardai is "No, you can't stop me because I read on a Boards thread a comment by Nick Park who knows loads about stuff that the freedom to travel means you can't stop me on my way to commit a crime"
If you are travelling to England to have an abortion you are attempting to commit an offence as the constitution is currently framed. The right to travel, like the right to freedom is subject to you not being engaged in or have intent to commit a criminal act.
You do like to make a lot of stuff up don't you?
So your suggestion is that the choice should be abortion on demand in Ireland is unlawful but if you want to have one you can as there are no consequences providing that in one of your most stressful times of need and support you take a flight over to England where you can find your way in a strange city to a clinic you've never been to before where people you've never met before will carry out the abortion after which you'll have to fly back to Ireland because that way we can say this is a country of christian values and there's no on demand abortion here.
Nick Park wrote: » It does make perfect sense if you take human rights treaties seriously. The right to travel is guaranteed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.I, and many other people, believe that our country should not be complicit in the taking of human life and should, as far as practicable, defend the right to life of the unborn child.
Nick Park wrote: » Removing the human right of freedom of movement is not practicable. You do not promote one person's human rights by restricting another person's human rights.
Nick Park wrote: » You are free to disagree with me, but you betray your own intolerance when you advocate a denial of my democratic right to vote for options that express my views.
Nick Park wrote: » Your proposal, in seeking to force people to choose between two bad options is, sadly, typical of the confrontational approach that wants the debate over the 8th amendment to be one of misrepresentation, name-calling and intolerance.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I'm truly sorry for your loss Nick. And I hope that you and your family have come to a place of acceptance (we must eventually come to accept the things we cannot change, after all, however horrible they may be.) We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. You have your reasons to support your position, and I have mine. The people will vote, let's not diss them regardless of the position they choose. What I'm worried about is what extremists outside the state may do.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » So you prefer a situation where on demand abortion is illegal but there are no consequences for breaking the law by taking an unborn who has the protection of the Irish constitution and having it aborted in England. That makes perfect sense!!
J C wrote: » How does carrying a baby, during which everything generally proceeds quietly and automatically with little or no conscious input required from the pregnant mother ... 'beat' the very serious input of time and effort involved in looking after a newborn baby. Unless some serious medical complication arises, pregnancy proceeds smoothly and without any substantive issues.
NaFirinne wrote: » Have a listen to this very Interesting interviewhttp://www.spiritradio.ie/louises-story/
Delirium wrote: » No care?? There's a biological connection required for survival. That's beats changing diapers any day of the week!
