Men's rights on Abortion?

gozunda wrote: »

Has it ever occured to you that the termination of pregnancy is also a complex issue - and your attitude that that those nasty wimen 'killing unborns' (sic) as you put it it is simplified bs.

no, because i don't believe it is a complex issue.

gozunda wrote: »

Did it ever enter your skull that couples ie both men and real women (and not just your nasty murdering winen) may make the decision together to go ahead with a termination.

of course. but it's not relevant and it won't change my view on the issue.

gozunda wrote: »

Yes it happens and a lot more frequently than your simplified logic appears to allow for. Even where a real life woman has to make that decision alone based on reasons not excluding rape abuse incest health poverty homelessness etc that remains her decision and you have no right to force your judgement on her or on where applicable any couple.

where a woman or couple make the decisian to kill the born child that remains her or their decisian and one has no right to force their judgement upon her or them. see how that logic fails? well for me it is the same with the unborn outside medical reasons.

gozunda wrote: »

A 'new born' child is not the same as an un viable fetus of under 12 weeks. There is NO comparison whatsoever and Medical knowledge agrees. Whather one or more partners walk away pre or post birth is a very different issue - but don't let that stop you in your rambles or judgement of people.

a fetus has the same right to life as a new born child. unless the fetus causes the mother's life to be under threat, would cause the mother to become permanently disabled or injured.

gozunda wrote: »

Btw your take on abortions and fathers is quite hillarious- if a woman terminates a pregnancy then obviously there is no 'child' from which to walk away from! Or are you attempting to use that issue as simply another brick in your badly built wall of logic?

the argument ultimately is, if the mother can abort a child and walk away from the responsibility of bringing the child into the world, then why shouldn't the father be able to walk away should she decide to keep the child and he doesn't want it.

Shadowthrone wrote: »

See again your confusing your opinion for logic.

The logic in EOTR's argument is solid. It's you who is conflating opinion with logic in this instance.

I understand that you deem a fetus to be a human being and therefore should have equal rights. But scientifically it is not a sentient being and there not yet a human being. Yes it has the potential to become one but that is not enough to give it the same rights as an already sentient being.

You're conflating two different points of view there to put forward an argument which supports your opinion. Scientists have many different opinions and points of view on what constitutes life, but the one thing they do acknowledge as inarguable is the fact that in the context of human development, the entity in the womb is human, as distinct from being classed as any other type of species.

The second point at which your opinion is at odds with reality is that human rights and sentient rights are two completely distinct and separate philosophical concepts. Human rights are not determined by sentience, they are determined by the one sole shared trait of being human. Because rights are given effect and recognition by law, it absolutely can be determined in law that the unborn has an equal right to life as the right to life of the mother. The 8th amendment doesn't do this however, as it specifically recognises that human rights are not absolute, and so while the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn, it only has to vindicate and protect that right as far as is practicable. In cases where the mothers life is at risk due to her pregnancy, then it simply isn't practical to continue to maintain the right to life of the unborn.

Nobody is suggesting that the unborn has the same rights as the mother, the implication is simply that the unborn has an equal right to life as the right to life of the mother, as far as is practical. The mother still has far more rights than the unborn. The unborn currently has only one right, or at least was commonly viewed in law as having only one right until Judge Humphreys opined that the unborn child has many more rights under Irish law, and you can read about that case here -

The Supreme Court case that needs to be resolved before the Eighth Amendment referendum


In short, the law is going to trump scientific opinion every day of the week, but the laws are informed by scientific opinions, and scientists are not a hive mind, or a shared sentience if you prefer. Their opinions with regard to human development vary greatly, but scientists generally agree with the concept that human life and the beginning of a completely separate new life begins at conception. It then becomes a matter of legal opinions as to where on that spectrum of human development do we begin to assign rights, and in what circumstances those rights can be upheld, and in what circumstances those rights can be determined to be of lesser weight when balanced against the rights of another individial.

Human rights are relative, not absolute.

I have the potential to win the lotto, doesn't mean a bank should treat me as if I have and give me loads of credit.

You can't say you weren't aware of the economic boom when banks were handing out 100% mortgages to individuals on minimum wage. The banks did treat individuals like they'd won the lotto and gave them credit as though they had won the lotto.

The current debate is set at 12 weeks. At which point it is not technically a human being due to being non sentient. Therefore with emotions removed... should not get the same rights as it's mother.

It actually is a human being, there's no technicalities about that, and as I've previously mentioned it's about the only thing that the majority of scientists can agree on - that human life begins at conception. It is a question of the law and politics as to where on that spectrum of human development we assign privileges and responsibilities with regard to human rights, and you simply cannot separate emotional considerations from that argument as that would be to deny one of the things which is caused by sentience - an awareness of self, and an awareness of others. This is the basis of empathy, a concept which human beings are generally capable of, and our expressions of empathy towards others are based upon beliefs and experiences, entirely subjective, entirely egotistical, and in no way useful as a measure of objectivity and factual observation. That's exactly why when we talk about human rights, science is probably the worst way inform the discussion, because scientific opinion too is based upon consensus by peer review, by other scientists, who are human.

If you want to have a discussion where emotion is removed from the discussion, then you wouldn't be part of that discussion, you would be reliant upon computers to perform calculations to determine the most appropriate course of action in any given scenario. With the emotions removed, a computer would only be able to determine an outcome on the basis of information which has been fed into it, and if you already believe that the unborn shouldn't have an equal right to life as the mother (introducing your own bias into the equation), then your hypothesis is going to be supported by the output of a computer programs, because you designed it.

The hard part there is removing the emotion to be able to view it as a non sentient being. Something you and most people will struggle with.

In spite of the fact that you imagine you have removed emotion from your own arguments, you haven't, and that presents a difficulty for you, because your argument based upon sentient rights is a completely different argument to the argument everyone else is having about human rights. That struggle to make your point using a different frame of reference to everyone else is a problem for you. It sure as hell doesn't present any difficulty for me because your argument is simply invalid, and has more logic holes in it than a swiss cheese.

If you imagine you're thinking critically, then there are different schools of thought on what constitutes critical thinking too, and some philosophers have argued that emotions are a critical element (no pun intended) which influences critical thinking. Ignoring our emotions leads to mental distress and mental illness, which compromises our critical faculties and leads to compromising our decision making capabilities.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet demonstrably the only one tied up and lost here has been you. Completely in fact. As I said in MONTHS and even YEARS of debating this issue you are literally the first to completely lose the run of the conversation like this at all, let alone so spectacularly.

But my approach to ANY argument when someone loses track is to salvage it by going back to the basics. Which I did, but you have decided not to respond in kind and just get personal. Which will not aid either of us really, nor am I the one who that will make look bad.

There is nothing complex about the "good argument / bad argument" approach either. We appear to be entirely agreed we want women to have the free choice of abortion in our country. I am someone who believes attacking bad arguments from the anti-choicers is a good move (and so far they are ALL bad).

But I also believe in a clean house. If we see bad arguments from our own side, it is a win for ALL of us if we deal with those too.

Im sorry, but an appeal to longevity does not help you argument either. If as you claim - absolutly no issues with your argument have ever been pointed out - then I guess I must be the first. Take that how you will. Btw I made no personal comments - I simply pointed out flaws in the logic as I found them. Sadly I suspect at least some of this type of approach 're. good argument / bad argument may simply be feeding those who would shut the whole debate down and keep the status quo - clean house or otherwise.

notjustsweet wrote: »

LOL... Remember the scan photo? Nice attempt at propaganda. Unfortunately he chose one that was past 12 weeks though.

Remember it was 12 weeks and 3 days, which is within the error of accuracy for the dating of a baby...Hardly scaremongering now is it?

Shadowthrone wrote: »

In your opinion. I understand you feel strongly about you opinion and how have that right. but that doesn't change the fact that scientifically it is a non sentient being. and therefore isn't entitled to the rights of the mother at that point.

Your logic is flawed, and I suspect your non-sequitur is due to the fact that you imagine human rights are based upon sentience. They aren't, and they never were. Whether or not an entity is regarded as having human rights is not based upon sentience, it is determined by the characteristic of being human. Human rights are effected by the law in any given jurisdiction, and in Ireland, the unborn has a right to life, and the unborn is defined in Irish law as human life from the moment of implantation to the time when it emerges from the body of the woman. Human rights are more informed by political consensus than they are by scientific consensus.

That's why for example the laws were changed to hold men responsible for the welfare of their children rather than allowing them to abdicate their responsibilities to their children, and there is no political consensus strong enough to change that position. Some people have tried to equate a right given to men to abandon their children with a right given to women to have an abortion, and they've tried in all sorts of creative ways, from gender equality to paper abortion, but the political will just isn't there, and so this is unlikely ever to become a right enforceable in law, because it's effect would deny women the right to apply to the court at some point in the future for a maintenance order for the child should their circumstances change and they may need financial support from the childs father.

Again I do understand your point of view, but it is based on your emotional connecting with the idea of the living child. At the 12 week point it is not a living child yet and should not be treated as one.

Your point of view is based upon creating an emotional disconnect between a living child, and a living child. How a child is defined in different circumstances and what rights they should or shouldn't be afforded is a matter of law, and on that score your argument is coming up well short so far.

At the end of the day you can not base a nations constitution on potential. The fetus does have the potential to be born yes, but you cannot make rules on potential.

Eh? That is the very thing upon which a Constitution is based! It is a guiding document for a society, and as I mentioned previously, human rights too are aspirational, based entirely upon potential, and any arguments about Constitutional law and human rights law are based upon a consensus of aspirations which have the potential to lead to social progress. The argument for repealing the 8th amendment is based upon the potential effects it has for women. If I were to consider your line of reasoning as legitimate, you've just shot a gaping hole in the pro-choice argument, because we make choices based upon potential outcomes and to deny women that choice because according to you we don't base a nations constitution on potential, or we don't make rules about potential, would rule out the possibility of women being granted the right to an abortion, and instead they should let nature take it's course when they have the potential to become pregnant.

Thank fcuk for your sake I don't take that argument seriously :pac:

Immigrants have the potential to be terrorists, does that mean we should constitutionally ban all immigrants?

We certainly have that capability, and if an argument could be presented to support the belief that we should ban immigrants to this country because they are a threat to the nations safety by virtue of the fact that they are potential terrorists, then there's nothing stopping us from doing just that. The short answer to your question is "Yes, we can!", as demonstrated recently by the Trump administration in the US. Didn't succeed, but certainly it's not beyond what can be done, potentially, of course

this is not a reasonable approach. Let the government legislate and if they choose to keep abortion illegal fair enough, but get it out of the dam constitution.

There's no mention of abortion in the constitution in the first place, so it would be hard to remove what isn't there. What I think you might be referring to is the States acknowledgement of the right to life of the unborn. Allowing Government to legislate for abortion is actually a terrible idea in reality, because abortion then becomes a political football issue, and because politicians care more about their political careers than they do about the interests of the nation, I would suggest you take a look at how previously TD's have voted on the various members bills that have been introduced relating to legislating to broaden our abortion laws in this country. I'll give you a hint that might save you some time - it hasn't gone well, with most bills being introduced by a minority, and voted down by the majority. It appears that TDs are thinking more about the potential effect on their political careers than they are about the potential impact on the nation.

I mean, does it not strike you as strange that we are the only first world country which still has abortion illegal?

The only thing that strikes me as strange about that question is how ill-informed it is. Abortion is not illegal in Ireland, abortions are carried out in hospitals in Ireland, so to suggest that we are among a number of first world countries where abortion is illegal is simply false. Perhaps you meant to say that Ireland is one of many first world countries where the unborn has a right to life, or maybe one of many first world countries where elective abortions are illegal.

Personally, I don't find anything strange about that, as I understand the reasons for it. Even the European Court of Human Rights understands the reasons for it, which is why they regard the broad margin of appreciation which Ireland has in relation to it's laws on abortion. I'll regard the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights far more influential in relation to our laws on abortion than any toothless UN Committee which criticises Ireland for the potential harm it argues is caused by the 8th amendment in our Constitution.

All that said, I have no intention of changing your mind, I am just trying to state that this is an emotional debate when it shouldn't be. and this is way off topic so I'll leave it here

All that said, I only argue with the intention of changing your mind because it is a potential outcome of the discussion. If I didn't believe there exists the potential to change your mind, then any discussion would simply be a waste of time and I wouldn't bother my arse getting involved. Your opinion that it shouldn't be an emotional debate doesn't actually carry any weight for anyone who believes that it is an emotional debate, particularly when the outcome of any discussion involves the potential emotional impact on people of any potential outcome, whether that discussion involves the potential emotional impact on women of denying or allowing them an abortion, or whether that discussion involves the potential emotional impact on men of denying or allowing them to abdicate their responsibilities towards their biological children, and the potential emotional impact on children of repealing laws which were introduced to prevent men from doing so, because we are already aware of the potential outcome of doing so - we would then have a society where men would have no responsibility for their biological children, and this has a negative impact on society, which is why any arguments to convince people of the potential benefit to society of such a move are generally regarded as being entirely irrational.

notjustsweet wrote: »

You think it's great that we are the only first world country who refuses woman in crisis pregnancys to have choices?
That's a worrying and sad thought that in this era there is still people who demand to control other people's choices.
It doesn't affect you in the slightest if people you haven't met and never will make make a choice about something you will never know they made.

yes, i think it's great that we do not allow pregnant women the choice to kill their unborn child in ireland unless it is for exceptional circumstances. all countries control choices to an extent, on the basis of it being for the greater good of society. we just happen to extend those controls to trying to prevent the killing of the unborn, and i support that and i'm not sorry that i do.
it doesn't effect me in the slightest if people i have never met and never will meet, make the choice to kill someone else for example, but i am entitled to state that they are wrong, and to support laws that prohibit such an act from taking place.

gozunda wrote: »

I disagree - it is very relevant. Perhaps you should revisit that.

i won't be revisiting it. i have researched enough to be happy with the conclusion i have come to.

gozunda wrote: »

No I think that is one of the significant points of this referendum. Nearly all developed western countries hold that a fetus is not comparable with regards to developmental stage of a new born child. Time also you got your head around that.

just because other western countries think something doesn't make them right.

end of the road wrote: »

i won't be revisiting it. i have researched enough to be happy with the conclusion i have come to.

And that of course is your perogrative - however it does not make those opinons applicable to those who have suffered as a result of the existing draconian and backward legislation which have resulted in direct harm to many many women.

just because other western countries think something doesn't make them right.

What makes Irish society such an outlier in denying rights to women - what is the psyche of this country that results in this and then tries to ignore it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/9679840/Pregnant-woman-dies-in-Ireland-after-being-denied-an-abortion.html

And yes Savita deserves to be remembered...

notjustsweet wrote: »

Wow. Not sure if you've misunderstood, deliberately manipulated what I said to sound completely different or you think all female posters have a hive mind.

I only responded to what you wrote.

I don't remember saying anything about all female poster, I don't even know which posters are female.