Keep abortion out of Ireland

Apologies for the late reply and thanks again for yours, thought provoking as usual!

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s “beyond argument” only in the sense that you refuse to make any arguments, or to address any arguments made against you. You’ll restate your beliefs again and again, but you never offer any argument to suggest that anyone else needs to share them, or that your beliefs have any greater validity than any else’s. Instead, you simply dismiss any questioning of or challenge to your beliefs as “irrelevant”.

Why does what I believe have to have greater validity than anyone else's? Is it not enough for it to have an equal validity before it is reflected in law? The right to bodily integrity is the only argument that can help to clear up a debate where all sides claim to have equal merit.

But you can see, can’t you, that to someone who doesn’t already agree with everything you say this is not a very compelling case?

Agreed and I find myself pondering the same thing abut the pro life position.

I have to say that refusing to address or even acknowledge arguments against abortion is unlikely to be a quick route to the introduction of abortion to Ireland!

Again my arguments for abortion lie solely with the choice of the mother, arguments from morality, religion or the personhood debate have all been thrashed out countless times before yet the end result is the same, deliberate confusion so as to avoid having to make a decision that logically, there is no denying.

The case you are making essentially boils down to this: I believe X; therefore the law should be based on X. It is not necessary for me to demonstrate that X is true, or to persuade others to believe X along with me; it is enough that I believe it. The fact that others do not believe X is “irrelevant”.

Unfortunately this is as much a reflection on the law as it stands as my position.

This may be “satisfactory” in the sense that it is a clear moral position, proclaimed proudly and with integrity. But it’s deeply unsatisfactory in the sense that it’s plainly going to do nothing to change things in Ireland, since it’s only appeal is to people who already agree with you about X - and perhaps not even to all of them.

It will hopefully highlight the rather contradictory and discriminatory nature of the law on abortion here.

And, worse, it seems to me, it validates the legitimacy of an analogous position by someone who believes Y. If it’s OK for those who hold your view to demand that the law reflect it, then it is OK for those who hold the opposing view to make the same demand. And, since as far as I can see they are the majority, this legitimasation of this stance will favour them more than you. You have, in effect, conceded that they need not take account of your views in framing laws.

Again the fact that the majority don't want abortion in Ireland as of the last referendum is also irrelevant. It simply reinforces the misguided belief that Joe and Jane public have any say in the private affairs of individuals. It's the greatest flaw of democracy, a 75% majority will tend to leave a disgruntled 25% (insert figures as appropriate), especially when the needs and wishes of the minority will not impact upon the rights of those in the majority.

Also in any debate where two opposing viewpoints can be promoted using the same arguments (i.e. the I believe Y argument from your quoted post above), then both are equally valid or equally invalid. In either case an inequity exists when one of those arguments is legislated for yet the other opposing, equally valid/invalid argument is denied that right. The above quote from your post could be applied to either side.

And the fact that believing and stating this is either useless or positively counterproductive in securing a woman’s effective right to choose isn’t something that you find at all unsatisfactory?

No. What is more unsatisfactory to me is the belief that a woman's right to make a choice as to what she does with her body still needs to be secured. Have we really come that far in the last thirty or forty years of feminist thought if we still believe as men we have any domain over a woman's body?

Peregrinus wrote: »

You’re urging that your view should be reflected in law and the “personhood from conception” view should not be, while offering no argument as to why this should be so, beyond the fact that you reject it. That seems to me to be attributing a greater validity or demanding a greater status for your view than for the views of others

OK, I thought I had put forward my argument in previous posts as to why I believe a person exists when they are born, albeit a baby? Maybe this will clear it up, I believe that the world is all about people and all our personalities (personhood) and experiences are borne from our interactions with other people from the moment of birth, not from the moment of conception. I'm genuinely at a loss as to how people can think otherwise, that some supernatural force is present when sperm and ovum meet and the newly created zygote is injected with personhood.

Quite right. Which is why, when you demand that your view be reflected in law the limited appeal of the arguments you offer, you validate the analogous demand from the pro-life crowd. And since their view is in fact the more widely held (in Ireland, at any rate), this is likely to work against the outcome you seek.

Again it's an argument that works both ways, the upside to my point of view is it allows for greater freedom for women over their bodies without impacting those who wish to see their pregnancies through. And again the numbers shouldn't matter, that's not democracy in action, it's discrimination.

You’re at it again, I’m afraid. There are arguments against your position, and those who advance them are no more engaged in “deliberate confusion” than you are. And whether you dismiss them as “deliberate confusion” as you do now, or as “irrelevant” as you did earlier, I’m afraid you cut the ground from under your own claim that your position is one which “logically, there is no denying”. If your position was logically undeniable, you wouldn’t be forced into these evasions.

Well if my position cuts the ground from under my claim then the same can be said for the law as it stands. We're left with the untenable position of no decision being made which is why I favor the right to bodily integrity. I have to ask if you can't see how not allowing abortion is claiming domain over a woman's body?

If so, the corollary is that your position is no more defensible than the law as it stands. In which case, why should anyone prefer your position?

Because it shows the law as it stands is discriminatory towards those who want an abortion and pro-choice legislation will have no impact on those not seeking an abortion.

This comes to the nub of the problem; your position is as absolutist as the pro-life position; it’s just less popular. If I don’t like the absolutism of the pro-life position - and I don’t - why would I think yours any better? And, despite a number of fairly pointed invitations, you’re making absolutely no attempt to persuade me that I should.

Because quite simply put, my position doesn't make any claim over what women can do with their bodies. It simply says there is a choice and to deny someone that choice is wrong. Again the fascination with popularity! It makes no difference how many people think abortion is wrong, they have no right to prevent it's introduction if a minority of the population want it as it doesn't affect the majority. It's a more tolerant, inclusive approach to dealing with the thousands of women who travel abroad for abortions.

If I was being provocative - perish the thought! - I’d suggest that your position is actually not designed to bring about any change, but rather simply to validate to yourself your own integrity and superiority. Your position dovetails quite nicely with the position of the self-righteous pro-lifer; both of you heavily invested in a debate which neither of you has any interest in winning. They at least can comfort themselves that they enjoy the tactical advantage of greater popular support, so they do in fact get to influence the law; you have to make do with the dubious consolation of having your outsider/victim status affirmed.

Of course, not being the provocative type I wouldn’t dream of suggesting anything of the kind, but I would encourage you to reflect that the course you are taking is pretty well indistinguishable from the course you would take if you were motivated as I have suggested. Any practical way forward here has to start from the position that there are conflicting view, genuinely held, on both sides of this question, and that this is not likely to change. A strategy which is built on assuming without demonstration the truth of its own arguments, and dismissing without discussion the opposing arguments, is pretty much the opposite of a strategy that might achieve anything in this situation.

Well despite assumptions on your part I'm not engaged an a game of one upmanship over the pro-life crowd but am simply looking to do what I think is the right thing, to cater for the needs of those who wish to have an abortion at their discretion without any institutionalized interference. I think that is a basic human right and if it appears I'm playing the victim card then so be it. Anyone arguing for an oppressed minority will always appear that way to someone invested in the belief that a majority is automatically right.

This isn't about winning or looking to feel superior to anyone, it's about allowing women to choose for themselves. I'm not ignorant of the pro-life arguments and as you say there are opposing beliefs on both sides, so how then can we reconcile them if both sides arguments cancel each other out as you claim? At the risk of being provocative the weight of international opinion may have some bearing on the matter if you truly believe in majority rule.

Exactly!

So if you concede that point, then maybe you can see why I believe rights based discourse is the only way forward?

Firstly I think PDN covered what I was going to post already. Disagreeing with abortion does not automatically mean judgement on the people involved. You can separate the act and the person.

hattoncracker wrote: »

Apart from the thread I started myself, this is the only thread on boards about abortion really, and reading some of the posts on here, it's not exactly the most inviting place to share your stories. That's why I started my own, as a thread for women to post their stories in a safe environment where no abuse would be tolerated...

This is the Christian forum, it's never going to be a place where we start commending people on their decision to abort, however tough it was to take.

hattoncracker wrote: »

I have read posts on here that have said that women who want abortions should be sterilized...

I think that you've taken that out of context unfairly. It was a point about how sex has consequences. If you want sex with no possibility whatsoever of pregnancy then there are steps you can take. It was never implying that "women who want abortions should be sterilised" which makes it sound like I was suggesting women be forcefully sterilised against their wishes... but that women who want 'no-strings' sex in the sense of pregnancy etc should choose for themselves. You can't have it every way, no matter times you are told 'you're worth it'. Too often pregnancy is portrayed as something that just happens, you are walking down the street one day window shopping and wham! you find yourself spontaneously pregnant. Then you have the pregnant women who say "well I never asked for this", big whoop, you're a grown mature woman with some semblance of maturity. If you were having sex you were asking for it in the sense that it is always a possible outcome. As you yourself noted you did take decisions which led to you becoming pregnant.

hattoncracker wrote: »

Even if it is hard for me to write about, and it is, I think you really need to fully understand as much as is humanly possible what it is like on the flipside of the coin, why women fight for the right for abortion, and why it is so important that they get support and don't get judged no matter what choices they make....

..and you don't think people fully understand what it is like until they are pro-choice? Our choices, yours, mine, Joe Soap's, never come without consequences, whether it's abortion, or choosing to stay for one more pint, or buying new clothes, or withholding information from someone, or choosing not to tell the gardaí about something etc etc. Every decision you will ever make will have consequences. Every choice you will make will have consequences. Do you think people who choose to live a Christian life don't get judged negatively? It's not nice, but it's something you have to live with. We can't have a consequence free society and we can't control minds.. and part of the consequences of any choice is how others view us and the choices we've made. Do you fully understand the flip side of the coin yourself I wonder?

hattoncracker wrote: »

If it's what you believe that's fine, but it should not be something that is dictated by law.....

Of course it should be, unless you believe that in introducing abortion on demand it should be an unregulated free for all at any stage of the pregnancy using any means whatsoever. If you don't then you accept that abortion is something that needs to be "dictated by law" in so far as the law lays down the who, what, where, when, how etc.

doctoremma wrote: »

In an emergency situation like a burning building, on which criteria might you prioritise the value of one life over another?

Who is most in need of help.

doctoremma wrote: »

As in, who is the most likely to die?

The one most in need of help. Would I spend my time helping the physically able adult who can get out under their own steam or would I help the elderly/child/disabled person first? I think it would be the second. However again that's a practical issue and not one that has any bearing on the value of life.

doctoremma wrote: »

Ah, are you one of those people who, who asked to choose between 'truth or dare', chooses 'truth' than changes to 'dare' when he doesn't want to answer .

What has changed from the last time I responded to your inane hypothetical exactly? I'd help the one most in need of my help. It's a straightfoward answer to an absolutely meaningless hypothetical which really has no bearing on the thread subject matter whatsoever. You are reading too much into things, assuming that an answer either way has a reflection on the value of life.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77916303&postcount=737

Here's another one for you, let's say I have a gun with the sights firmly on a suicide bomber just as he's about to explode himself in a crowded street. Do I (a) pull the trigger or (b) do nothing? My answer would always be (a) but that has no bearing whatsover on how I value a human life.

Would I save the screaming child or 100 frozen embryos? The child. Again no bearing on the topic at hand or on the value of life.

doctoremma wrote: »

Thanks for replying.
That's an interesting pairing of moral actions. You'd kill one adult to save many, but you'd save one child and condemn the many to death?

The "many" are in cyrogenic suspension. One living breathing screaming child =/= frozen embryos. One is potential, one is actual. That doesn't mean outside of your pathetic hypothetical those frozen embryos wouldn't be worth more or be worthy of protection.

doctoremma wrote: »

Everyone, even you, has a point at which they value one life (or lives) over another.

Of course, but I'll repeat that has no bearing on the value of life in another situation.

doctoremma wrote: »

You are clearly saying that, all things being equal, the life of a living child has more value than the lives of multiple embryos (note: I'm not suggesting that those embryos are of NO value, nor would you)..

Within the confines of your hypothetical scenario. Don't fall into the trap of trying to extrapolate some further meaning from it or apply it to other scenarios. You gave a hypothetical I am answering in relation to your hypothetical and no further.

doctoremma wrote: »

So it's not really a black and white situation - embryos =\= children. Discussions about 'personhood from conception' fall down - if you truly believed an early blastula was a person, you'd be obliged to rescue the many people (the tank of embryos) over the few (the single person)?

Boom, you've fallen into the trap. How completely foreseeable.

doctoremma wrote: »

I specifically said as a note within my post that I would not (and nor would you) think those embryos had NO value.

No but you reached a conclusion, by referring to conception etc which has no bearing on your own strict hypothetical question. First you claim it has no external factors etc, then when I answer you try to take my response and run with it to make some other claims. It's nothing but a more elaborate version of the old 'are you still beating your wife?' nugget. As I said I answered your questions but within the parameters you established. Keep trying to drag my responses into some wider application and I am not interested.

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm making the point that the "value" of an embryo does not necessarily equal the "value" of a child and that we clearly have the capacity to discriminate (either through emotional responses or through ethical conundrums)..

That's obvious isn't it? The value of the life of the suicide bomber in my hypothetical does not necessarily equal the value of the life of the innocent bystander walking past in the split second I make the decision. However in general terms that doesn't mean I go around weighing the value of one adult off against the value of another. Faced with a situation where you have a child burning to death and a canister of frozen embryos with a split second decision I would grab the child and save it. That does not mean that applied to another scenario I am always going to say an embryo isn't worth the same as something else. We always have the ability to discriminate between competing rights and values, again see my suicide bomber example, however I have yet to hear of a case of an abortion being demanded on threat of killing an older child.

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm not trying to be provocative (at least, not intentionally). I should think it possible to have this discussion politely?

If you want a discussion have a discussion and we can drop the hypotheticals.

doctoremma wrote: »

The debate surrounding access to abortion does not hinge on a single factor or circumstance.

Great so we can drop the hypothetical that sought to bring a decision down to just that.

doctoremma wrote: »

There are multiple lines of discussion; the embryo's right to life, the woman's right to bodily integrity and so on. If we can focus in on a specific part of the discussion - does the life of an embryo always have equal value to the life of a fully-formed sentient person? - we might be able to see where there's room for debate or where there are two utterly opposing sides, never to meet at agreement (or even at compromise)..

There is. If you had asked that question to begin with I can see circumstances where those rights go in favour of the mother. If the mother needs urgent medical attention to save her life for example that would impact upon the unborn. Then I would think it would be better to save one life, at the expense of the other, rather than let two die. However seeing as how such issues represent a tiny miniscule fraction of the numbers of abortions in say the UK then it's not really worthy of consideration when contemplating unrestrained abortion on demand services.

doctoremma wrote: »

My hypothetical was only intended to address the question "Do we REALLY think an embryo is as much of a person and has as much of a right to life as a child (or indeed, as an adult)?"..

It only addressed the question within the confines of your hypothetical situation. It was you who stipulated there were no external factors/considerations/possibilities. It doesn't address the question at all at a broader level. Given another scenario the balance of rights could be different.

doctoremma wrote: »

I think, and of course it's only my opinion, that once you personally recognise certain circumstances where you can assign greater value to one life over another, you might feel obliged to recognise that other people are capable of assigning greater value to one life over another (and that they may choose to do so in alternative circumstances than you would choose to do so?).

Yes. Honestly, I'm baffled. You think I don't recognise that other people, shock horror, have other opinions? The problem as far as recognising and respecting each others opinions is that I am not the one who says other people should not have a say on the issue.

doctoremma wrote: »

You are perfectly free to think the circumstances in which they choose to value one life over another are abhorrent, but this is now merely your opinion, as they may think that the circumstances under which you assess the value of one life over another are abhorrent to them (I don't mean "merely" to indicate "easily dismissed" in any way).

...yes it is my opinion and standpoint.

doctoremma wrote: »

And it doesn't necessarily dictate or equate to the choice another person would take with such a suicide bomber in their sights. Your choice is your choice. It has no bearing on how I would respond in that situation..

OK.

doctoremma wrote: »

Of course not. But others may disagree with you about rescuing the child instead of the tank of embryos - could you put up a reasonable argument about why you would think them wrong (if, by choosing the opposite to you, that would mean you think them to have taken the wrong course of action).

Could I? Yes I could. Wasn't that a very long, roundabout way of saying different people have different opinions? It has absolutely no bearing on the legalisation argument. That different people feel differently is no reason to legalise the provision of abortion on demand.

Wh1stler wrote: »

I don't know; perhaps you or Plowman can enlighten me.

Sarcasm. You completely missed it in PDN's post.

doctoremma wrote: »

Of course. But how it might affect society (or not) is an extension of your opinion. What kind of societal impacts do you anticipate? Given that the majority of developed countries permit abortion, it might be difficult to argue that it causes some kind of societal collapse?

I'd rather not live in a society which simultaneously attempts to remove prejudices and ignorance on one hand, and 'removes' undesirables on the other. Look at the numbers of Downs Syndrome diagnoses in the womb in the UK and how many are actually born. I would not choose to live in a country where we slap each other on the back and cheer on our athletes in the Special Olympics, then turn around and tell pregnant women that they should abort DS babies. I don't want to live in a society where any type of disability carries the death sentence. I don't want to live in a society where we could facilitate the aborting of females because they weren't male. I don't want to live in a society, where I walk past the barbershop, the bakers, the post office, and the place where we sanitise a form of ethnic cleansing prior to birth. I don't want to live in a place that allows citizens of the country grow up knowing they are on a list somewhere that says 'Suitable for abortion' etc.

doctoremma wrote: »

I would not have it any other way. I'd place my life on the line to ensure you retain your right to vote. You?

Yes I would. I have never, would never and will never deny people the right to vote. From my own experience however I have been told numerous times that my vote shouldn't count, always from the pro-choice side.

doctoremma wrote: »

Some people do have the right to carry guns. Nonetheless, guns are usually bad for society, with very measurable and horrific effects. Someone with a gun might kill me. Someone getting an abortion does no harm to me.

..and you can also measure the effects of abortion. Again see DS numbers in the UK for a very clear example. You don't think it's horrific that women in already traumatic circumstances are being pushed into having abortions? You don't think it's horrific that dozens of children in the UK are delivered alive following botched abortions and then left to die?

Wh1stler wrote: »

So it was you, and Plowman and undoubtedly others too who missed my sarcasm.

I'm sure it was.

Wh1stler wrote: »

Then you disagree with prinz who stated that no Christian will support abortion which suggests that only non-Christians choose abortion.

Actually the poster is of the very same strain of thought as myself when it comes to life saving medical treatment resulting in the death of the foetus. Perhaps you should spend more time reading the posts on this one and less time complaining about threads that don't exist.