Bannasidhe wrote: » You are conflating two very different things and frankly speaking utter nonsense. Baptism has no legal standing nor does it confer 'personhood'. Not being baptised meant a child/adult could not be buried in ground that was deemed consecrated to a Christian faith not that a child/adult wasn't a human. It just so happened that most of the cemeteries in Ireland were controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and with their usual empathy they refused to allow proper burial. As we have seen, some parts of that particular organisation preferred septic tanks - even when disposing of baptised children. ALL children born in Ireland since the enactment of the Registration of Births Act 1863 are required by law to be registered - once this is done they are legally a person - baptism or no baptism. For example the Goldberg family of Harcourt St in Dublin appear in the census of 1911 as they are recognised as living human beings - they were not, however, baptised. http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Fitzwilliam/Harcourt_Street/73041/ There were 3 Jewish cemeteries in Dublin alone, the oldest dating back to 1660. If unbaptised people - such as Jews - were not recognised as human why would they need cemeteries? According to your statement they would have been 'medical waste'. You didn't really think that through did you?
Andrew Beef wrote: Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.
Charmeleon wrote: » The point you missed was how we define what constitutes a person of value or standing in the community varies by historical or cultural context. 'Fundamental human rights' by definition means you or I, the government or society have absolutely no business or input putting our own criteria or barriers in between a human and their fundamental rights. We can have additional rights but all human life has a basic right to life.
Bannasidhe wrote: » If that was your point it was badly made. You made a statement of fact which simply isn't true. At no point, historically or socially, has a fetus been considered to have fundamental human rights. Not even the 8th grants that as it does not recognise the unborn as a citizen just as 'alive'. Nor does the State recognise a fetus as a 'person' and as such does not extend the same rights as it does to a born child - hence no child benefit.
kylith wrote: » Fundamental human rights are a human construct, guaranteed by the state. The universe, planet earth, or Nature does not give you a right to life. The universe doesn’t give a damn if you live or die.
Charmeleon wrote: » Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.
Charmeleon wrote: » Of course it's a construct, it's a barrier we put up between victims and people who would treat them like animals or objects. We call them fundemental because we understand there are no good arguments for allowing exceptions, only an opening for barbarity.
kylith wrote: » So you agree that it can’t benefit from human rights until after it’s born
Bannasidhe wrote: » It is inside a person who has fundamental human rights and one of those rights should be to refuse to have their bodies used to host a fetus against their will! And no, all those rights are not 'transferred' - if a pregnant woman is murdered it is not a double homicide. In Common Law jurisdictions there is a crime of 'Child Destruction' when the fetus would have been capable of living outside the womb - but these laws fall short of calling it homicide and were not enacted in the Irish Free State as they were first introduced to the UK and Northern Ireland in 1929.
Charmeleon wrote: » Should a conjoined twin be able to kill the other? Surely they have a right not to host the other if they have the vital organs?
JDD wrote: » I guess I must be an outlier a bit in my beliefs I believe a foetus is human. I think these arguments are useless actually. I don't believe it has a soul as I'm not religious. I don't think any human has any automatic right to anything, except for the rules we as a society impose in order to ensure it doesn't all dissolve into anarchy. Lets put the actual procreation aspect of it aside for moment. I think it would be completely immoral (not to say illegal) to create an embryo in a laboratory and then forceably implant it into someone and make them carry it to term. I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference that the embryo is a human. We accept all sorts of circumstances within our society where a human life is ended (self defence, war, the Pill, embryos in IVF clinics, etc). It's the equivalent of grevious bodily harm. I still believe that a lot of motivation for holding a pro-life view is because of that bit at the start, the procreation bit. Because a woman engaged in the act of sex while knowing there's a small chance that their contraception could fail, that is excuse enough to say that the grevious bodily harm is warranted. And that stems from the archaic notion that the woman is responsible for upholding the moral stance that sex should not occur outside of solely wanted to procreate. A sort of "sure isn't it good enough for her, she shouldn't have been shagging around in the first place". Nowhere do you see this more than when people say they're in favour of repeal but only in cases of FFA (the foetus won't survive anyway) or rape (well sure she wasn't shagging around so she held up her moral side of the bargain, and god I'd look like an awful ****e if I made her stay pregnant after being raped). Let me set out my stall here. I've had three kids, all C-sections. The three pregnancies and three surgical procedures have given me various health problems. My last pregnancy I had suspected placenta accretia, a very serious pregnancy complication. If I got pregnant again, I would have a 60-80% chance of actually having it. This may result in nothing more than a few blood transfusions at birth, or I may have permanent damage to my cervix, bladder, and surrounding organs, or (and it's difficult to find recent stats on this) there is a 7% maternal mortality rate. I've got my tubes tied so I don't get pregnant again. But since my third pregnancy occurred even though I religiously (no pun intended) took the Pill, I can't be completely sure that I won't be one of the 0.1% who get pregnant after tubal ligation. If I get pregnant again I'll be ordering the termination pill online before the 12 week mark. I can't take that sort of chance that my kids will be left without a mother. Nor do I want to take the chance that I'll be permanently incapacitated. It's not fair on me, and it's not fair on my children. I should be able to take this choice, for me and for my family, with the support of my GP. But I'm left trusting directions on a website and possibly having to turn up at St. Vincents A&E if something goes wrong. Under current legislation, I could be imprisoned. It's just a nonsensical situation. So that's why I'm voting repeal. And I'll be trying to convince everyone I know to do the same.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help. They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )
Andrew Beef wrote: » Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.
JDD wrote: » We accept all sorts of circumstances within our society where a human life is ended
Bannasidhe wrote: This, I think is an important point. If a person is truly pro-life and believes it is morally wrong to take a human life than that should surely be without qualification. No 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts'.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » But why should it be without qualification? Why so black and white? In hospitals is very common to have a do not resusitate instruction for a patient near end of life, or even to stop trying to provide treatment that would only effect a poor quality of life for a short period. I doubt anyone who is truly pro life could actually say that there aren't circumstances where a death is an inevitable choice, whether it's a 9 week fetus or pulling the plug on a terminal 90 year old.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » I doubt anyone who is truly pro life could actually say that there aren't circumstances where a death is an inevitable choice, whether it's a 9 week fetus or pulling the plug on a terminal 90 year old.
kylith wrote: » Andrew Beef wrote: » Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases. Allowing it in rape cases raises difficulties. Do you wait for conviction? That can take years. Would it require just a Garda report? The rate of false reporting would skyrocket. Do you take the woman’s word that she was raped and allow it without formal reporting? What’s the difference between that and allowing it on request?
Captain Obvious wrote: » I presume you mean except for our constitution?
Andrew Beef wrote: » The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born. It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.
kylith wrote: » Andrew Beef wrote: » The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born. It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial. So it would come down to a panel deciding whether a woman was lying or not before it ever went to trial? You don't think that that would prejudice the trial in any way, no? How would the Rape Committee come to this conclusion? Do you think that this would lead to fewer women reporting rapes as they would have to attend a hearing on whether she was a liar before it even went to court or any charges were made? Are Gardai, GPs and psychologists infallible in telling whether or not someone is lying?
Andrew Beef wrote: » It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.
