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

Charmeleon wrote: »

Yes, of course I do. When someone kills 15 individuals it is morally worse than killing 1.

Agreed, but it is not worse because they were individual. If we lived in a society with identical clones then murdering 15 of them would still be worse than murdering 1.

Charmeleon wrote: »

We recognise self determination and rights are founded in the individual, likewise culpability and punishment is based on identifying the responsible individual and not some random individual.

Again no, YOU might be recognizing that but I do not know who this "we" is you are inventing. You are, as I said before, using the measure of the application of the concept as if it is itself the concept. Rights are not founded on the individual, they are APPLIED on the basis of the individual. A much different thing.

Charmeleon wrote: »

Do you really believe the individual is of no moral concern? I find that frightening.

Not even remotely what I have said, no.

Charmeleon wrote: »

The basic unit of human existence. The individual. That which cannot be further divided into units. You can’t say all you did was separate John into his arms and legs etc. without recognizing you have ended the life of a unique human individual (basic unit of humanity). You also cannot say the eight arms, eight legs, two torsos and two heads over there are Mary.

I am not sure why you are listing things I can not say when I have, at no point at all so far, said them?

Might it be more useful to progress the conversation by discussing what I HAVE said?

Schumi7 wrote: »

You're trying to define a human, not as a physically/objectively existing thing but as a social being, which human life in the womb can't be of course.

I define "human" in the way the context demands. If I am sitting in a conference on taxonomy I am going to define it very differently to how I would define it sitting at the table in a philosophical debate on morality.

That so many people, usually on the "no" side of this referendum, think the word has one meaning across all contexts is a point of genuine concern.

Schumi7 wrote: »

You're misunderstanding me. When I say you end up drawing a false line that can also be applied to adults...take the example of a patient in a coma from which he/she may awake. See the example above or someone with alzheimer's disease. I'll repeat again - anytime you draw any line other than the conception of a child you end up drawing a false line that can also be applied to people who are adults.

Not misunderstanding you at all them as I very much predicted that "coma patients" would be your go to example as it happens because you are FAR from the first person to try that one.

And I repeat, that is blatantly and demonstrably not true given people have "drawn lines" that very much distinguish between a 10/12/16 week old fetus, and everything else that comes after it, which in no way is challenged by the concept of, definition of, or exists of, "Adults".

You are trying to falsify that statement by presenting only definitions that conform with your assertion. Rather than saying something like "Oh really? Well what definition do YOU use that bypasses the issue I have raised then?". Because the reality is that I do "draw a line other than the conception of a child" that in fact is not a "false line" and does not encounter the issue of being "applied to people who are adults". So your assertion is demonstrably false from the outset.

Schumi7 wrote: »

Abortion isn't a human right in international law and inherent in the bodily autonomy argument is the notion that the other life is property. You don't have to delve too far back in time for another example of that kind of thinking. (I'm not accusing you of being pro-slavery btw. There is just a striking overlap in the arguments used)

But I did not call it a human right, and I made no reference whatsoever to International Law. So there appears to be three people in this conversation between us. You. Me. And this invisible person you are replying to the points of that I certainly never made. Unfortunately since this third person exists solely in your head it makes the conversation difficult, as I am not hearing his points, while you are.

MY point however was that the focus of rights, morality and ethics has to be the well being of sentient creatures. And if one wants to curtail the rights, choices and well being of a sentient creature in deference to one that is not at all sentient......... then some level of justification should be demanded for that move. Justification you are not at all offering here.

Schumi7 wrote: »

The dehumanisation already occurs with the language used, the latin terms fetus & embryo, to describe the human life in the womb. (Dehumanisation is necessary to justify killing. That is a general point btw, I'm not accusing you of being in favour of killing)

And again you have it exactly backwards. Calling a spade a spade takes nothing away from the spade. Because it actually is a spade. Calling a fetus a fetus, when it actually is a fetus, does not take away anything from the fetus.

So your "Dehumanization" narrative is backwards. No one is dehumanizing it at all. Rather they are questioning as unsubstantiated nonsense your attempt to humanize it before it's due. We are not removing characteristics that it has, so much as calling you out on trying to smuggle in those it does not.

Which is a MASSIVELY different thing.

Schumi7 wrote: »

I prefer the promotion of responsible behaviour for society as a whole, rather than 'rights' without duties. I don't include abortion on such a list because abortion isn't, and should never be, just another form of contraception.

So as I said your idea of "responsible behavior" is to make the choices YOU would make. Which means you are not actually trying to get people to take responsibility at all, so much as you are taking it on their behalf.

Also no one here called abortion a contraception. It would be ludicrous to do so given we know what contraception actually means and abortion, by definition, is not one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I define "human" in the way the context demands. If I am sitting in a conference on taxonomy I am going to define it very differently to how I would define it sitting at the table in a philosophical debate on morality.

That so many people, usually on the "no" side of this referendum, think the word has one meaning across all contexts is a point of genuine concern.

Exactly. You define human life and the value of human life according to context, or when it suits you.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not misunderstanding you at all them as I very much predicted that "coma patients" would be your go to example as it happens because you are FAR from the first person to try that one.

And I repeat, that is blatantly and demonstrably not true given people have "drawn lines" that very much distinguish between a 10/12/16 week old fetus, and everything else that comes after it, which in no way is challenged by the concept of, definition of, or exists of, "Adults".

You are trying to falsify that statement by presenting only definitions that conform with your assertion. Rather than saying something like "Oh really? Well what definition do YOU use that bypasses the issue I have raised then?". Because the reality is that I do "draw a line other than the conception of a child" that in fact is not a "false line" and does not encounter the issue of being "applied to people who are adults". So your assertion is demonstrably false from the outset.

I used those examples to highlight the sophistry some people engage with to make certain actions more morally palatable.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But I did not call it a human right, and I made no reference whatsoever to International Law. So there appears to be three people in this conversation between us. You. Me. And this invisible person you are replying to the points of that I certainly never made. Unfortunately since this third person exists solely in your head it makes the conversation difficult, as I am not hearing his points, while you are.

I didn't say you did. I stated that abortion is not a human right in my original post to rebut the often repeated suggestion that it is one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

MY point however was that the focus of rights, morality and ethics has to be the well being of sentient creatures. And if one wants to curtail the rights, choices and well being of a sentient creature in deference to one that is not at all sentient......... then some level of justification should be demanded for that move. Justification you are not at all offering here.

My point is that the 'right' to choice, outside of the exceptions, is a lesser right than the right to life of the unborn.

As regards justification, in my original post I did point out the likely real world effects of repeal. Ireland is not immune to such changes.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And again you have it exactly backwards. Calling a spade a spade takes nothing away from the spade. Because it actually is a spade. Calling a fetus a fetus, when it actually is a fetus, does not take away anything from the fetus.

So your "Dehumanization" narrative is backwards. No one is dehumanizing it at all. Rather they are questioning as unsubstantiated nonsense your attempt to humanize it before it's due. We are not removing characteristics that it has, so much as calling you out on trying to smuggle in those it does not.

I don't try to humanise it as it's already human life. I don't have to 'humanise' it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Also no one here called abortion a contraception. It would be ludicrous to do so given we know what contraception actually means and abortion, by definition, is not one.

It has become another form of contraception wherever it has been legalised, regardless of the technical definition. That is demonstrably the case and that is the pertinent point here.

spacecoyote wrote: »

I, in essence, argued pretty much the same point from the opposite side on here a couple of weeks ago

Yes, the referendum is in essence a moral/ideological question.

You see your morals as right & believe that everyone should be forced to align with your beliefs.

I (and YES voters in general) respect your right to your own morals & won't force you to take any action that is outside of your beliefs system. But I also respect people with other perspectives choice to make the best decision for themselves.

Why are your morals more correct than mine or anyone else's?

If you don't believe in abortion then don't ever use the service.

I agree with you that there are some things that modern Ireland has lost, but the 8th is something modern Ireland still has currently & needs to lose

To which I could say something like...relativity applies to physics, not ethics. Such statements however can remain in the abstract, especially in sensitive debates like this one where many feel a strong intuitive attraction to both arguments. (I would, on balance, allow choice for the exceptions btw)

Look at the likely real world consequences I pointed out instead, which you partly referred to at the end of your reply. The example of other the Western nations should prove instructive. Ireland is not immune to such changes and if relativity prevails then they are likely to ensue. The culture of entitlement is fertile ground for such relativity.

My overarching point is that there are consequences to every value system; from the most puritan to the most hedonistic and everything in between. Human history is testament to that. Society is not static; there is cause and effect and a direction of travel. I do get the distinct impression from some that they see the current progessive/rights based ethos as representing some sort of 'End of History' moment (...a la Francis Fukuyama's contention that the end of the Cold War represented the 'End of History'). It doesn't.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And relativity applies to physics, not politics. Not only are you making a correlation-causation error.......... by assuming based on nothing that abortion correlates with these factors you are scare mongering with........ you are not EVEN showing the correlation holds by showing that abortion has ANYTHING at all to do with the things you have listed.

Firstly, my reply was to the other poster. Secondly, I have no desire to enter into some sort of grubby point scoring match with you on this issue.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Further these things you have failed to correlate with, let alone support a causal link with, are things you just trot out as if we should defacto accept them to be bad things. Like immigration or children born out of wedlock. Why pretend those things are automatically bad?

The following is descriptive btw, in case you are quick to accuse me of advocacy.

Ireland differs from the other Western nations because our culture currently places life and the family on a higher pedestal. The 8th Amendment is a constitutional reflection of this and the demographic statistics are testament to it.

Immigration in itself isn't bad, but large scale immigration is evidently bad because it leads to the stark political changes that we have seen across Europe and America in recent years - changes which are not in the ether here. Virulent forms of nationalism have emerged and the EU is still in danger.

This wasn't the result of some conspiracy however, the level of immigration seen elsewhere was necessary because the 'native' population in these countries no longer replenished themselves. As the family declines, there is more divorce, less pregnancies, more abortion etc, and the birth rate collapses.* In order to pay for pensions; to keep the health and education services and so on fit for purpose, immigration is required. In other words, immigration only becomes a problem when the 'host' culture becomes weak. When this happens a pluralist society becomes a 'multi-cultural' one and problems ensue.

Studies have long shown that single parent families and family instability in general is linked with lower educational attainment; much higher rates of mental health problems; higher rates of juvenile delinquency, to name but a few.

The effect of each on society as a whole when both become more commonplace is obvious. The decline of the family heralds the growth of the state and economies of ever increasing debt. It's the most concerning issue of our time.

* Reams of literature on this demographic crisis or 'time-bomb' have been produced for years btw. A simple google search will alert anyone to it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have two children. We are happily unmarried. Do you want to explain to me how and why that is somehow a problem exactly?

I'm not referring to you specifically.

Deleted User wrote: »

Any idea if the count will start tomorrow night or will it be Saturday?

Saturday morning, but RTE are doing an exit poll so there'll be a rough indication of the outcome tomorrow night.

Charmeleon wrote: »

Making up arbitrary tests of whether a human individual (or group) is as ‘human’ as us is inherently dangerous and convenient, when we get to choose the parameters.

When people go through IVF, would people accept a ‘lucky dip’ from a communal pool of embryos? Only the most desperate would not seek their own fertilised embryos if they are available.

The ability to distinguish medically which embryos would have our dna is not the same thing as saying those embryos are people.

Overheal wrote: »

“The UN Human Rights Committee found that by not providing access to abortion to these women, Ireland was in violation of the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to privacy. These are all set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – to which Ireland is a signatory.”

http://theconversation.com/irelands-8th-amendment-is-a-breach-of-its-own-human-rights-commitments-97013

The above relates to the exceptions, for which I am pro-choice, and doesn't contradict what I said.

There is no right to abort in law, nor is it a Right under the European Convention.

Charmeleon wrote: »

People used to say a pregnant woman was ‘with child’ before it became medicalised with Latin and Greek jargon. Child means a human being that has not passed through puberty and cannot reproduce. There’s no lower limit, only an upper one.

The American Convention on Human Rights goes further and ascribes personhood, it states in article 4.1:
Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

Which is in contravention of the US’s own laws on abortion.