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..
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
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?
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: » 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: » 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: » 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: » 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.
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » Life begins at conception and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.. And I'm pro choice.
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.
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?
NuMarvel wrote: » Your statement had nothing to do with the content of my post, because I never claimed there was a human right to abortion. If you somehow misunderstood that you should have clarified instead of making irrelevant comments.
Wonderful. I agree. And the only realistic way to make our abortion laws human rights compliant, which we both agree they should be, is by repeal of the 8th. Which I suppose puts Christians in a bind. Because if they vote no to repeal, they'd be voting against human rights compliant law, but if they vote yes, they may be voting against the tenets of their beliefs.
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.
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?
Nick Park wrote: » I advocate a safety first policy. Which is worse? To get it wrong by setting the point too early, and thereby inadvertently protecting those who are not human beings? Or to get it wrong by setting the point too late, and thereby killing those who are human beings?
In my opinion, history has seen very little evil caused by being too generous in our application of human rights or by broadening them. But incalculable evil has been caused by being selfish in our application of human rights and by narrowing them so as to exclude categories of people.
All I am doing is advocating that Ireland votes for a broader and more generous application of human rights than many countries currently offer. You might disagree with me. But it is telling just how much bile and snide sarcasm is attracted by advocating such a position.
Nick Park wrote: » First off, I'm sorry to hear about the miscarriages. Been there myself and I know how it feels.
Thirdly, if you didn't see your miscarried unborn child as a human being, then it sounds as if the 'Catholic' hospital (debatable term, but another topic) did not force their religious views on you. Is that a bad thing?
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » 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.
david75 wrote: I’d be interested to know the male to female ratio posting in this thread.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » That is irrelevant. The truth is the truth, regardless of gender.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » It is logical that if you conceive, you have a baby.
screamer wrote: » If Christians followed everything in the Bible...our societies wouldn't be any better than those of others which we complain about for being repressive and medieval. There seems to be a thinking that if we legislate for abortion there'll be abortion en masse. I don't believe that for a second. The decision to end a life would be that of the woman or couple involved and no one elses. Just like if the baby would be theirs to rear and no one elses. So the Christians can salve their conscience. And BTW if a Christian wants to force a woman through a pregnancy from rape or where the baby has little chance of survival or indeed has no financial means to provide for that child, I'd wonder how "Christian" one really is......
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: And yet women miscarry all of the time so your "logic" flies out the window.
antiskeptic wrote: Human life?
