Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Abortion debate thread

1…2021232526…59

Comments

  • #662
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    I understood your point perfectly, and I don't agree with your point. You specifically said "the whole point of the case was that it highlighted she couldn't have one". The narrative could changes in such a way that Ireland's problems with abortion would not be evidenced by the Savita case, as it would be no longer established that she couldn't have one.

    Would it not be a case that it was no longer established that she asked for one? There seems to be a lot of agreement she couldn't have had one, whether she asked or not.


  • #663
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    But we aren't talking about France or Germany, are we? Of course I realise that, after it was pointed out to you that you were wrong, you changed your original post to add "in some countries" but, your dishonesty aside, it seems clear that we were talking about Ireland or the UK.
    The common law duty of care is somewhat more resticted than in civil law juristictions. In France, for example the law of "non-assistance à personne en danger" (deliberately failing to provide assistance to a person in danger), can be punished by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR 100,000 ... and rightly so.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    This is simply not true. Everybody does not owe everybody else a duty of care. We are talking about legal term here, duty of care is a legal term. If I see a person drowning I can, quite legally, take a seat and crack out the popcorn and watch them drown, assuming that I did not somehow cause the person to be in the position they are in or owe them a duty of care for some reason.
    In France you could be heading for five years in jail for such a callous act ... and, although judges in Common Law juristictions are reluctant to move beyond statute law ... such outrageous behaviour as you describe, could possibly be punished under the Common Law offense of outraging public descency ... and if Common Law was found to be lacking, in such a situation, the public disgust at such an outrage going unpunished would rapidly ensure that Statute Law would be expanded to severly punish such outrageous behaviour, as is already the case with our Continental neighbours.

    Do you not consider that you could be the one drowning, some day ... and what would you think of a society that tolerated people who wouldn't lift a finger to save you ... and instead turned your misfortune into some macabre form of entertainment for themselves?
    MrPudding wrote: »
    That isn't what we are talking about, and what I would do in actuality has little relevance to a conversation about what I am required to do legally.

    MrP
    I'd like to think that nobody would be as callous and irresponsible as you describe above.

    However, nobody on the forum has challenged your outrageous suggestion that a tragic needless drowning could be turned into a celebration ... and that this could be done with social (and therefore legal) impunity, in a Common Law Juristiction.

    Please remember that Common Law can punish socially outrageous behaviour ... even where no particular Statute exists ... and the punishment can be unlimited imprisonment and unlimited fines.
    Such an outrage, as you describe above, could possibly be successfully prosecuted under the Common Law offense of 'outraging public descency' ... and I think that a jury might actually convict.


  • #664
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I am pretty sure that even in this case a duty of care would need to exist. So, if you were on a bus which crashed into a river and a complete stranger was holding your hair then you would have no duty of care towards them. Speaking legally, and not morally or ethically, you would be unlikely to face any legal action.
    Your duty of care under Common Law increases with the degree of your culpabilty for the issue causing the danger to the other person as well as their legal or personal relationship with you. However, a duty of care should always be assumed by you to everybody in all situations where your actions ... or lack of action can cause injury or death to others ... including strangers.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    A poignant example of this can be seen in the herald of Free Enterprise tragedy. A number of people were using a ladder to escape form danger. A man on the ladder panicked and froze. People tried to convince him to move but he wouldn't. Eventually he was kicked off the ladder and fell to his death. There were no prosecutions as a result of this.
    This was clearly a case of self-defense for the other passengers, whose lives were being put in iminent peril by the guy on the ladder ... which clearly 'trumped' any duty of care that they had to him.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    You are missing an important step. Before the reasonable person test there is a subjective test. The court will first asses what the person believed was happening, the risk they believed they were in. Once that is established they will ask if a reasonable person would have acted the same way in the circumstances the person believed they were in. This is a very important distinction. Two people could have a very different opinion on how dangerous or life threatening a particular scenario was. All that is relevant is what the person who has defended themselves thinks.
    I'm not missing any step ... I said that the test was the judgement or perception of a 'reasonable person' ... which takes account of both the hard facts of the case as well as any beliefs/opinions a person could reasonably hold in the circumstances (such as the degree of danger the burgler could potentially represent ... as distinct from the danger that he actually represented).

    MrPudding wrote: »
    All that is relevant is what the person who has defended themselves thinks.
    This is not correct ... in order to be taken account of by a jury, what somebody claims they thought about a situation ... must also be the thoughts of a reasonable person in the circumstances that they found themselves.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    I would also doubt you example. Case law has shown that a home owner shooting a fleeing burglar will not necessarily lose the ability to claim self defence.
    MrP
    The reasonable perception of the person firing, as to the danger that the fleeing burgler represented to them (or somebody else), could possibly sway a jury not to convict ... but unless this evidence was very compelling, I think that the homeowner would be heading for prison in such a scenario.


  • #665
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    The common law duty of care is somewhat more resticted than in civil law juristictions. In France, for example the law of "non-assistance à personne en danger" (deliberately failing to provide assistance to a person in danger), can be punished by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR 100,000 ... and rightly so.
    Yes, so what. We are, and have been talking about the UK and Ireland where there effectively is no common law duty of care.

    J C wrote: »
    In France you could be heading for five years in jail for such a callous act ... and, although judges in Common Law juristictions are reluctant to move beyond statute law ... such outrageous behaviour as you describe, could possibly be punished under the Common Law offense of outraging public descency ... and if Common Law was found to be lacking, in such a situation, the public disgust at such an outrage going unpunished would rapidly ensure that Statute Law would be expanded to severly punish such outrageous behaviour, as is already the case with our Continental neighbours.
    The governments of most countries with a legal compulsion to act have had plenty of opportunity to act, but haven't. Personally I would support, in broad terms, legislation similar to that which we see in France and other civil law jurisdictions, but I would want it to ne properly drafted.
    J C wrote: »
    Do you not consider that you could be the one drowning, some day ... and what would you think of a society that tolerated people who wouldn't lift a finger to save you ... and instead turned your misfortune into some macabre form of entertainment for themselves?
    Right JC, quit this rubbish. We are trying to have an adult conversation about the LEGAL position of the requirement to rescue. Your juvenile and probably quite intentional point missing is quite tiresome.

    I'd like to think that nobody would be as callous and irresponsible as you describe above.

    However, nobody on the forum has challenged your outrageous suggestion that a tragic needless drowning could be turned into a celebration ... and that this could be done with social (and therefore legal) impunity, in a Common Law Juristiction.
    [/quote]Right JC, quit this rubbish. We are trying to have an adult conversation about the LEGAL position of the requirement to rescue. Your juvenile and probably quite intentional point missing is quite tiresome.

    And the reason no one else has challenged my outrageous suggestion is that everyone else sees it for what it is, and intellectual exercise.

    J C wrote: »
    Please remember that Common Law can punish socially outrageous behaviour ... even where no particular Statute exists ... and the punishment can be unlimited imprisonment and unlimited fines.
    Such an outrage, as you describe above, could possibly be successfully prosecuted under the Common Law offense of 'outraging public descency' ... and I think that a jury might actually convict.
    Can you please provide me with evidence of this? There are some statutorily enforced duty of care scenarios, like the occupiers liability act, but not really any common law duty. The common law develops, when it does develop, incrementally, and I think it is rather a stretch to assume a, presumably novel offence, would attract an unlimited sentence or fine.

    The general test for a duty of care is the "Caparo" test, and it is unlikely that anyone watching someone drown would satisfy the requirements of that test. Think about what actually happens when someone drowns in the sea, probably hundreds of peoples watched. In fact, so many people see, watch and do not help when someone is in trouble we have a name for them. Witnesses.
    J C wrote: »
    Your duty of care under Common Law increases with the degree of your culpabilty for the issue causing the danger to the other person as well as their legal or personal relationship with you. However, a duty of care should always be assumed by you to everybody in all situations where your actions ... or lack of action can cause injury or death to others ... including strangers.
    This is just wrong. There is no duty of care unless the person caused the hazard or there is a relationship that warrants a duty of care, or they satisfy the caparo test. Without either of these things there simply is NO duty of care. it is not that there is a weak one, there simply isn't one.

    J C wrote: »
    This was clearly a case of self-defense for the other passengers, whose lives were being put in iminent peril by the guy on the ladder ... which clearly 'trumped' any duty of care that they had to him.
    There was no duty of care to the man. That was the point!

    J C wrote: »
    I'm not missing any step ... I said that the test was the judgement or perception of a 'reasonable person' ... which takes account of both the hard facts of the case as well as any beliefs/opinions a person could reasonably hold in the circumstances (such as the degree of danger the burgler could potentially represent ... as distinct from the danger that he actually represented).
    No. Wrong. For self defence the first part of the test is subjective and the belief of the person that committed that act does NOT have to be reasonable. The court must look at how the self defender felt (not a reasonable person), at the relevant time, taking into consideration the danger they felt they were in whether those feeling were reasonably held or not. Once this has been established the court will decide if the actions taken were reasonable in those specific circumstances. So it is a two part subjective / objective test where the subjective part does not have to be reasonable.
    J C wrote: »
    This is not correct ... in order to be taken account of by a jury, what somebody claims they thought about a situation ... must also be the thoughts of a reasonable person in the circumstances that they found themselves.
    No. As I explained above, for self defence, it is not the thoughts of a reasonable person, it is the thoughts of the actual person who defended themselves, whether those thoughts were reasonable or not. The action taken however, on the basis of the belief of the circumstance, must be reasonable.


    J C wrote: »
    The reasonable perception of the person firing, as to the danger that the fleeing burgler represented to them (or somebody else), could possibly sway a jury not to convict ... but unless this evidence was very compelling, I think that the homeowner would be heading for prison in such a scenario.
    I don't have time right now to find them, and it has been a while since I studied them, but there is plenty of case law where the person committing the act of self defence was completely mistaken as to the risk, or genuinely held a belief that was not reasonable, and were still able to rely on self defence because they acted in a manner not contrary to a reasonable person believing themselves to be in the position the person believed themselves to be in.

    MrP


  • #666
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Yes, so what. We are, and have been talking about the UK and Ireland where there effectively is no common law duty of care.
    You have chosen to talk about the UK and Ireland where the duty of rescue is somewhat less clear than on the Continent where it is very clear and a part of both criminal and civil positive law.
    Nobody has a duty to do something that is impossible for them to do or puts their life at serious risk in any juristiction.
    So, in your cited example, there would be no obligation on the person witnessing the drowning to put their life at risk by going into the water to save the person drowning. However, it would be a reasonable expectation that they would phone the rescue services and if there was a life-buoy nearhand to throw it into the water and haul the person ashore, if that were possible. None of these actions would put the rescuer's life at any risk ... and they could be critical to saving the drowning person.
    If they didn't do either action they would certainly be in breach of criminal positive law in countries like France and Germany. If they didn't do either action in the UK and Ireland a successful criminal prosecution would be unlikely under Common Law.
    However, if they sat back and 'cracked open some popcorn' and laughed as somebody died needlessly in front of them, as you suggested ... I think that it would be such outrageous behaviour that the common law criminal offense of 'outraging public decency' might be applicable to such behaviour ... and a jury might well convict.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    The governments of most countries with a legal compulsion to act have had plenty of opportunity to act, but haven't. Personally I would support, in broad terms, legislation similar to that which we see in France and other civil law jurisdictions, but I would want it to ne properly drafted.
    We are in agreement on this - but I would point out that where a government fails to act ... and the issue is very serious, the courts may create a common law precedent with full legal effect, anyway.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Right JC, quit this rubbish. We are trying to have an adult conversation about the LEGAL position of the requirement to rescue. Your juvenile and probably quite intentional point missing is quite tiresome.
    OK, I accept that you were trying to make a point about the legal position on duty to rescue in Common Law juristictions ... but you went 'over the top' with the example you chose.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Can you please provide me with evidence of this? There are some statutorily enforced duty of care scenarios, like the occupiers liability act, but not really any common law duty. The common law develops, when it does develop, incrementally, and I think it is rather a stretch to assume a, presumably novel offence, would attract an unlimited sentence or fine.

    The general test for a duty of care is the "Caparo" test, and it is unlikely that anyone watching someone drown would satisfy the requirements of that test. Think about what actually happens when someone drowns in the sea, probably hundreds of peoples watched. In fact, so many people see, watch and do not help when someone is in trouble we have a name for them. Witnesses.
    The Capro case was a civil tort under common law.
    What I was talking about was the criminal offense of 'outraging public decency' ... by not only, not lifting a finger to help ... but by also treating the unnecessary death of somebody as some kind of macabre entertainment. This would be outrageous behaviour ... and thus potentially subject to criminal censure in a common law juristiction.

    In relation to your second example of somebody drowning at sea while hundreds watch ... the witnesses have no liability at law if they called the rescue services and could do nothing further themselves without putting their own lives at serious risk - and this is also the case in positive law juristictions, like France where there is a clear duty to rescue. In a common law juristiction they may have no liability at all ... but this is never really tested ... because within a group of several people, at least one will phone the emergency services ... and it is likely that somebody will also use a lifebuoy if it is practical to do so ... and in many cases further attempts at assisting the rescue will also be spontaneously made.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    This is just wrong. There is no duty of care unless the person caused the hazard or there is a relationship that warrants a duty of care, or they satisfy the caparo test. Without either of these things there simply is NO duty of care. it is not that there is a weak one, there simply isn't one.
    A duty of care will exist in all situations where your actions ... or lack of action can cause injury or death to others ... including strangers.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    There was no duty of care to the man. That was the point!
    ... if somebody is frozen with fear up a ladder in your local street, what would happen if a group of people came along and deliberately knocked him off the ladder, thereby causing his death?
    Could I suggest that they would be convicted of manslaughter ... and if there was significant pre-meditation, it would be murder.
    The crucial difference with the situation on the sinking ship, is that this man represented a serious threat to the escape and therefore to the lives of the people who shook him off the ladder ... and thus they were acting is self-defense ... and that was the point!!

    MrPudding wrote: »
    No. Wrong. For self defence the first part of the test is subjective and the belief of the person that committed that act does NOT have to be reasonable. The court must look at how the self defender felt (not a reasonable person), at the relevant time, taking into consideration the danger they felt they were in whether those feeling were reasonably held or not. Once this has been established the court will decide if the actions taken were reasonable in those specific circumstances. So it is a two part subjective / objective test where the subjective part does not have to be reasonable.

    No. As I explained above, for self defence, it is not the thoughts of a reasonable person, it is the thoughts of the actual person who defended themselves, whether those thoughts were reasonable or not. The action taken however, on the basis of the belief of the circumstance, must be reasonable.
    Perception by definition is subjective and judgement is objective ... but both would have to be those of a reasonable person for to have validity as a reason for killing somebody in self defense.
    You are confusing subjectivity with reasonableness ... if I subjectively believed that a burglar was carrying a knife and I therefore shot him as he lunged towards me ... this would be a reasonable belief, even if he turned out to be unarmed.
    However, if I shot him as he escaped out my front gate because I believed that he had a rocket grenade launcher with which to blow up my house ... this would be an unreasonable belief ... and it wouldn't justify a verdict of self-defense.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    I don't have time right now to find them, and it has been a while since I studied them, but there is plenty of case law where the person committing the act of self defence was completely mistaken as to the risk, or genuinely held a belief that was not reasonable, and were still able to rely on self defence because they acted in a manner not contrary to a reasonable person believing themselves to be in the position the person believed themselves to be in.

    MrP
    That's precisely my point ... both their subjective belief as well as their objective judgement must be in accord with what a reasonable person would believe / judge and do in the circumstances.
    Once again we are in agreement on this one ... the only bit I don't agree with you on is that a genuinely held belief that was not reasonable would be acceptable as a plea in self-defense.
    No matter how genuinely held ... the belief would also have to be reasonable.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    I'll say it one more time. If a woman, I don't care who she is reduces or seeks to reduce her child to merely a disposable entity within law, than she also reduces another woman's right to say she is carrying a child with the right to life
    doctoremma wrote: »
    I really don't buy this argument.

    Let's say I don't eat animals and haven't done so for the majority of my life. I believe an animal - a live, born creature - has a right to life.

    My belief and my application of "right to life" for cows is not in any way "reduced" by other people chomping down on a steak.

    My child has special needs doctoremma, and he is not a child that anybody, or at least most people, would consider as on the same scale alongside their steak that they eat with a bottle of red!


    If you consider the right to life alongside the steak we eat every day than you are not speaking about the same things I am - not even close!

    Maybe you have to love them first. I don't know - but what I do know is that they are not merely disposable simply because they are not perfect to people who think they are.


  • #668
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    lmaopml wrote: »
    I'll say it one more time. If a woman, I don't care who she is reduces or seeks to reduce her child to merely a disposable entity within law, than she also reduces another woman's right to say she is carrying a child with the right to life



    My child has special needs doctoremma, and he is not a child that anybody, or at least most people, wouldn't consider as on the same scale alongside their steak that they eat with a bottle of red!


    If you consider the right to life alongside the steak we eat every day than you are not speaking about the same things I am - not even close!

    Maybe you have to love them first. I don't know - but what I do know is that they are not merely disposable simply because they are not perfect to people who think they are.

    Well my youngest has special needs too, and nobody (certainly not Dr.Emma) has or is equating him with a steak. You've heard my reasoning before - you have never heard me equate the death of a born child with the death of an animal killed for food.

    It could be taken up as you trying to twist the meaning of other people's comments when you say something like "If you consider the right to life alongside the steak we eat every day than you are not speaking about the same things I am", especially when you haven't qualified that the right to life that was being discussed is that of an unborn child (more specifically in the embryo stage I believe).

    You MUST know by now that many (perhaps most) people do not share your belief that the "right to life" of a non-sentient fetus equals that of a child's (with or without special needs) life.

    As one mother of a special needs child to another, can I ask you respectfully to keep born children such as our children out of this abortion debate?


  • #669
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Obliq wrote: »
    Well my youngest has special needs too, and nobody (certainly not Dr.Emma) has or is equating him with a steak. You've heard my reasoning before - you have never heard me equate the death of a born child with the death of an animal killed for food.

    I have been dismayed to hear people equating the 'choice', that is the 'womans' choice, debate with how the animal world functions and I wouldn't have to scroll too far.
    It could be taken up as you trying to twist the meaning of other people's comments when you say something like "If you consider the right to life alongside the steak we eat every day than you are not speaking about the same things I am", especially when you haven't qualified that the right to life that was being discussed is that of an unborn child (more specifically in the embryo stage I believe).'

    Since when did my child not be 'my child'? Since when did you become anybodies 'child'? Semantics - My 'Baby' was my baby with a right to life from the VERY moment he was begun - and despite what people may say about his needs - 'I' will fight for his right to life because he is beautiful....better than most.
    You MUST know by now that many (perhaps most) people do not share your belief that the "right to life" of a non-sentient fetus equals that of a child's (with or without special needs) life.

    I know no such thing, I have more faith in people than some do to see where the destruction of imperfect life, imperfectness in general is the destruction of themselves too - probably my son taught that much to me.
    to keep born children such as our children out of this abortion debate?

    'Born' Children - are children, so are growing children - I don't see the need to love one less than another, and I'm sorry obliq I never will think it's a 'good' thing either for women or for children or some kind of 'freedom' for women, in fact I think it's more pressure and only sets women back, makes them small, and not free at all.

    I am heartened to see at least some men on this thread think they deserve an opinion however - not an overbearing one, but certainly a voice too.


  • #670
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    I have been dismayed to hear people equating the 'choice', that is the 'womans' choice, debate with how the animal world functions and I wouldn't have to scroll too far.

    I'm sorry you've been dismayed by that, but your dismay is not my dismay. My understanding of human nature (I see it as not very far removed at all fro the animal kingdom) is totally different to yours, clearly. However, we live here in the world together, and my views are shared by many, as are yours.

    Since when did my child not be 'my child'? Since when did you become anybodies 'child'? Semantics - My 'Baby' was my baby with a right to life from the VERY moment he was begun - and despite what people may say about his needs - 'I' will fight for his right to life because he is beautiful....better than most.

    Nobody denies you your right to think that way about your baby, or anyone else's baby. But I certainly didn't see my baby as "my baby" till I was around 3 to 4 months pregnant. The crux of the issue here is that you are fighting for the rights of other people's "babies" (as you see it) and an awful lot of those other people don't think you have the right to say your beliefs are better than there's - HOWEVER heartfelt and reasoned (according to your beliefs) they are. That becomes a massive problem between us.

    I know no such thing, I have more faith in people than some do to see where the destruction of imperfect life, imperfectness in general is the destruction of themselves too - probably my son taught that much to me.

    Well, you SHOULD know that other people's beliefs about the right to life of such a tiny life (for all it's potential) are not the same as yours. You can have all the faith in people you want, but having a blind spot to the reality of many people being different to you is not helping here at all, I don't think. You see no room for compromise because of your beliefs (I can understand that) and I see no room for my beliefs being so compromised by yours that yours have a say over my reproductive options (you don't seem to understand that part??)


    'Born' Children - are children, so are growing children - I don't see the need to love one less than another, and I'm sorry obliq I never will think it's a 'good' thing either for women or for children or some kind of 'freedom' for women, in fact I think it's more pressure and only sets women back, makes them small, and not free at all.

    I am heartened to see at least some men on this thread think they deserve an opinion however - not an overbearing one, but certainly a voice too.

    You're fine lmaopml, I understand we don't see eye to eye here - many agree with you, many with me. But there will always continue to be unwanted pregnancies that can't be dealt with any other way than abortion. It's an unfortunate reality of human life and living....and dying.

    Sorry about the lack of quoting and italics - actually have toothbrush in mouth and on the way to bed!


  • #671
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Obliq wrote: »
    I have been dismayed to hear people equating the 'choice', that is the 'womans' choice, debate with how the animal world functions and I wouldn't have to scroll too far.

    I'm sorry you've been dismayed by that, but your dismay is not my dismay. My understanding of human nature (I see it as not very far removed at all fro the animal kingdom) is totally different to yours, clearly. However, we live here in the world together, and my views are shared by many, as are yours.

    Since when did my child not be 'my child'? Since when did you become anybodies 'child'? Semantics - My 'Baby' was my baby with a right to life from the VERY moment he was begun - and despite what people may say about his needs - 'I' will fight for his right to life because he is beautiful....better than most.

    Nobody denies you your right to think that way about your baby, or anyone else's baby. But I certainly didn't see my baby as "my baby" till I was around 3 to 4 months pregnant. The crux of the issue here is that you are fighting for the rights of other people's "babies" (as you see it) and an awful lot of those other people don't think you have the right to say your beliefs are better than there's - HOWEVER heartfelt and reasoned (according to your beliefs) they are. That becomes a massive problem between us.

    I know no such thing, I have more faith in people than some do to see where the destruction of imperfect life, imperfectness in general is the destruction of themselves too - probably my son taught that much to me.

    Well, you SHOULD know that other people's beliefs about the right to life of such a tiny life (for all it's potential) are not the same as yours. You can have all the faith in people you want, but having a blind spot to the reality of many people being different to you is not helping here at all, I don't think. You see no room for compromise because of your beliefs (I can understand that) and I see no room for my beliefs being so compromised by yours that yours have a say over my reproductive options (you don't seem to understand that part??)


    'Born' Children - are children, so are growing children - I don't see the need to love one less than another, and I'm sorry obliq I never will think it's a 'good' thing either for women or for children or some kind of 'freedom' for women, in fact I think it's more pressure and only sets women back, makes them small, and not free at all.

    I am heartened to see at least some men on this thread think they deserve an opinion however - not an overbearing one, but certainly a voice too.

    You're fine lmaopml, I understand we don't see eye to eye here - many agree with you, many with me. But there will always continue to be unwanted pregnancies that can't be dealt with any other way than abortion. It's an unfortunate reality of human life and living....and dying.

    Sorry about the lack of quoting and italics - actually have toothbrush in mouth and on the way to bed!

    Obiq I think you misunderstood. I am not talking about what 'you' think or 'I' think or anybody else thinks about the unborn child - I am talking about what they in fact 'are' that is, human beings - human beings, imperfect, sometimes wanted, sometimes not, sometimes abused, other times not, but with a whole world to explore -

    You are speaking about something else - you are saying they are NOT human beings with any right at all - make no mistake! You think they are 'less' than the person who carries them for nine months. They are even 'less' by the judgement of the person who carries them with regards to how 'perfect' they are....

    ..I hate most very sincerely where this is going for women and for their children, it's not freedom, it's 'shopping' by any other name and reduces everybody - we might as well be nihilists, all for one and one for none.

    Sad. However, that's not the way most women think, and I truly believe it's not the way even the 'dead beat dads' think ultimately - I'll fight for life, with every bone in my body I'll fight for the unborn, for the imperfect people who hold a mirror that we need to look into.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Obiq I think you misunderstood. I am not talking about what 'you' think or 'I' think or anybody else thinks about the unborn child - I am talking about what they in fact 'are' that is, human beings - human beings, imperfect, sometimes wanted, sometimes not, sometimes abused, other times not, but with a whole world to explore -

    Not misunderstanding you lmaopml - I know that's how you see humans - all humans from conception to death. I am talking about the difference in how we SEE the facts - what we think of the facts, because that is crucial here. We see things in two very different ways, clearly - you say your way is the only right way - I say my way is ALSO right.

    The unborn is certainly human, yes - the unborn human embryo (or baby, as you like to lovingly call it - I'm not so sentimental - not having a go at you here, I'm just NOT as sentimental!) has no brain, nervous system, emotions, experience - all it is is potential to be human. It is no more special to me than a newborn chicken, unless I MAKE it so (as in my own wanted pregnancies).

    Still awake, as you can see. If I don't reply again over the weekend, it's because I'm sneaking a go on eldest's computer tonight - network card broke on mine.


  • #673
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Obliq wrote: »
    Not misunderstanding you lmaopml - I know that's
    how you see humans - all humans from conception to death. I am talking about the difference in how we SEE the facts - what we think of the facts, because that is crucial here. We see things in two very different ways, clearly - you say your way is the only right way - I say my way is ALSO right.
    The unborn is certainly human, yes - the unborn human embryo (or baby, as you like to lovingly call it - I'm not so sentimental - not having a go at you here, I'm just NOT as sentimental!) has no brain, nervous system, emotions, experience - all it is is potential to be human. It is no more special to me than a newborn chicken, unless I MAKE it so (as in my own wanted pregnancies)

    Still awake, as you can see. If I don't reply again over the weekend, it's because I'm sneaking a go on eldest's computer tonight - network card broke on mine.

    You are right obliq. You see only potential and choices that are 'comfortable' - I see an uncomfortable world one way or the other and see no need to take it out on the unborn - 'human being' - that's what they are, that's what anybody with an opinion started out as a human being, not another 'animal' but a child either wanted or not.

    The simple truth is, that if one tiny life is reduced to a 'choice' factor, than so are all unborn children of any Mums - and I'm not so naive to think that this doesn't effect my choice to have a child with special needs or indeed eventually to mean that a couple should only have an 'acceptable' by society no of children, or even 'acceptable' children, one day. It's permeated society, you can see it in a 'look' sometimes...

    You think this is daft thinking? Take a walk in the shoes of a woman with a child that needs help, and is a single mum, that society thinks is a 'bum' - I meet with them every week, they fight against so many 'ideals' of society and are rejected to being literally SW only people - these strong women, with beatiful children who dare to 'have' their child despite other women who undermine them with no regard - They let them down so very badly.


  • #674
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Obliq:

    In short.

    First this isn't about belief it's about factual reality. I.E there is a human life in the womb from birth to conception.

    Second this is a human rights debate. Abortion takes the life of another. If it didn't I'd be glad to tolerate your view no matter how wrong it was.


  • #675
    Greenmachine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭Greenmachine


    Sharon Osbourne " I think... something, something... cervix" does not constitute evidence.


  • #676
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    lmaopml wrote: »
    You think this is daft thinking? Take a walk in the shoes of a woman with a child that needs help, and is a single mum, that society thinks is a 'bum' - I meet with them every week, they fight against so many 'ideals' of society and are rejected to being literally SW only people - these strong women, with beatiful children who dare to 'have' their child despite other women who undermine them with no regard - They let them down so very badly.

    I AM one of those women. Exactly that. And thank you for your concern, but you have entirely missed my point again. Your compassion ONLY seems to work for women who want their pregnancies to continue.

    Where is your compassion for the woman in an abusive relationship who NEEDS to leave, is terrified to leave, but has to leave for her children's sake - say SHE gets pregnant again, and knows she'll be trapped and many more times vulnerable than she and her existing children already are? What about her? What about her children? Are YOU going to step in and stop the abuse? Are YOU going to tell her continuing her pregnancy is the right thing to do? Are YOU going to help her? This is a fact of many women's lives. It was nearly a fact of mine.

    Where is your compassion for the rape victim who in your world should endure 9 more months of that rapist's control over her?

    Where is your compassion for any woman? All I can see is compassion for the unborn life here, and a muddle headed attempt to second guess the future and predict mass eugenics. What rubbish. You see eugenics happening now in Ireland? No. But we DO have abortion here (but some in Ireland are in denial about that, so it has to be carried out abroad). Women need them sometimes and you're in make-believe land if you think you can fix that with your attitude.

    SO much more I could say to you, but you're clearly hung-up on some fanciful notion that the likes of me (single mum with special needs kid) are undermined by the likes of me (pro-choice single mum with special needs kid). Not everyone thinks like you, and I resent you taking my choices for me.


  • #677
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    philologos wrote: »
    Obliq:

    In short.

    First this isn't about belief it's about factual reality. I.E there is a human life in the womb from birth to conception.

    Second this is a human rights debate. Abortion takes the life of another. If it didn't I'd be glad to tolerate your view no matter how wrong it was.

    And who are you to call right or wrong, any better than I am? Human rights are constructed by us, by consensus. They are not written in stone, they are written and rewritten the world over all the time. We hope, based on compassion, with as much fairness as possible to all views in a secular society.

    So much of this has to do with belief, it isn't even funny in the slightest. What do you think gives a human life (in it's very first stages - non-sentient) so much more right to life than any other life? It's about your belief. And that's fine, but you're stomping all over mine.


  • #678
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    I AM one of those women. Exactly that. And thank you for your concern, but you have entirely missed my point again.
    There is an obnoxious tendency amongst some people to look down on other people ... and this is not only visited upon people with special needs ... it extends to the contempt for older people by some young people ... and the contempt that some people who think they are intellectually superior often have for people who have little formal education (but who would 'buy and sell' them when it comes to common sense)!!!
    I wouldn't worry, Obliq, about the behaviour of such 'small-minded' people in relation to your beautiful child ... although I can see that it can be hard to take.
    Obliq wrote: »
    Your compassion ONLY seems to work for women who want their pregnancies to continue. Where is your compassion for the woman in an abusive relationship who NEEDS to leave, is terrified to leave, but has to leave for her children's sake - say SHE gets pregnant again, and knows she'll be trapped and many more times vulnerable than she and her existing children already are? What about her? What about her children? Are YOU going to step in and stop the abuse? Are YOU going to tell her continuing her pregnancy is the right thing to do? Are YOU going to help her? This is a fact of many women's lives. It was nearly a fact of mine.
    No woman should endure abuse for one minute ... and as a man, I have nothing but contempt for the bullying cowards who vent their inadeqacies on their unfortunate wives and girlfriends!!!
    However, killing an innocent unborn child is not an appropriate response to an abusive relationship with another adult.
    I would certainly step in to stop an abusive man, if the victim was my daughter ... or my sister ... or if he did it in my presence and the victim was a stranger. The many womens refuges are also thankfully available to support women who are abused and to help them re-establish their lives.
    Obliq wrote: »
    Where is your compassion for the rape victim who in your world should endure 9 more months of that rapist's control over her?

    Where is your compassion for any woman? All I can see is compassion for the unborn life here, and a muddle headed attempt to second guess the future and predict mass eugenics. What rubbish. You see eugenics happening now in Ireland? No. But we DO have abortion here (but some in Ireland are in denial about that, so it has to be carried out abroad). Women need them sometimes and you're in make-believe land if you think you can fix that with your attitude.
    I have compassion for every person who finds themselves in less than ideal circumstances ... but I don't think that killing other people is ever justified ... except in self-defense or the defense of others ... where no viable alternative exists.


  • #679
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    We see things in two very different ways, clearly - you say your way is the only right way - I say my way is ALSO right.
    This is not a matter of subjective perception or belief ... its an objective fact that all unborn children are Human Beings ... with the exact same potential to live to ninety as all born children. If somebody kills a born child they cut off its potential to live to ninety in the very same way as if they kill an unborn child.
    All these arguments about the sentinent capacity and cognitive ability of unborn children is very dangerous self-serving sophistry ... because such arguments help to create the very dangerous belief that some Humans are less deserving of life than others (on the basis of cognitive ability).
    Obliq wrote: »
    The unborn is certainly human, yes - the unborn human embryo (or baby, as you like to lovingly call it - I'm not so sentimental - not having a go at you here, I'm just NOT as sentimental!) has no brain, nervous system, emotions, experience - all it is is potential to be human. It is no more special to me than a newborn chicken, unless I MAKE it so (as in my own wanted pregnancies).
    This has nothing to do with sentimentality ... or what you choose to believe ... and people have no more a moral right to kill their unborn children than they have to kill their born children ... and no, the inconvenience of carrying them over nine months to term doesn't justify killing them, any more than the inconvenience of rearing them to 20 justifies killing them at that stage of their lives either.

    The hard fact is that an unborn child is objectively totally and fundamentally different to a chicken ... at whatever stage of life you wish to compare them.


  • #680
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Obliq wrote: »
    And who are you to call right or wrong, any better than I am? Human rights are constructed by us, by consensus. They are not written in stone, they are written and rewritten the world over all the time. We hope, based on compassion, with as much fairness as possible to all views in a secular society.

    I'm a human being who can observe reality. It doesn't matter very much who I am. Truth is truth. Postmodernism is an untenable 20th century philosophy. It's major flaw is to say that truth is entirely subjective, ironically the only truth is that there is no truth from that perspective. However, I and many others disagree with that approach, because irrespective of what people think the human foetus and the human embryo are alive in the womb. They are human life biologically.

    I don't agree with the POV that human rights are constructed by anybody. People have an innate knowledge of what is right and wrong thanks to the conscience.
    Obliq wrote: »
    So much of this has to do with belief, it isn't even funny in the slightest. What do you think gives a human life (in it's very first stages - non-sentient) so much more right to life than any other life? It's about your belief. And that's fine, but you're stomping all over mine.

    I don't think it does. The only reason I'm against abortion is because I acknowledge the reality that the embryo / foetus is a human life and I am opposed to those who think it is OK to kill as a matter of a choice.


  • #681
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Obliq wrote: »
    I AM one of those women. Exactly that. And thank you for your concern, but you have entirely missed my point again. Your compassion ONLY seems to work for women who want their pregnancies to continue.

    Where is your compassion for the woman in an abusive relationship who NEEDS to leave, is terrified to leave, but has to leave for her children's sake - say SHE gets pregnant again, and knows she'll be trapped and many more times vulnerable than she and her existing children already are? What about her? What about her children? Are YOU going to step in and stop the abuse? Are YOU going to tell her continuing her pregnancy is the right thing to do? Are YOU going to help her? This is a fact of many women's lives. It was nearly a fact of mine.

    Where is your compassion for the rape victim who in your world should endure 9 more months of that rapist's control over her?

    Where is your compassion for any woman? All I can see is compassion for the unborn life here, and a muddle headed attempt to second guess the future and predict mass eugenics. What rubbish. You see eugenics happening now in Ireland? No. But we DO have abortion here (but some in Ireland are in denial about that, so it has to be carried out abroad). Women need them sometimes and you're in make-believe land if you think you can fix that with your attitude.

    SO much more I could say to you, but you're clearly hung-up on some fanciful notion that the likes of me (single mum with special needs kid) are undermined by the likes of me (pro-choice single mum with special needs kid). Not everyone thinks like you, and I resent you taking my choices for me.

    As a woman I resent that you feel the need to say some children are wanted and some are not and that is 'your' choice alone - it's not, it never was, and those women who give birth to their special needs child or their 'unwanted' ( like hell ) child should be subject to your subjective thought. I will not be ruled by this, I will be ruled by somebody who asks and gives MORE than this tiny narrow view of a comfortable life - life is not comfortable, it's hard sometimes, but it's good too. Ask any single mum who risks everything for the sake of keeping her tiny child, that she loved from the moment she felt the first flutter of life, and decided her fate.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    lmaopml wrote: »
    As a woman I resent that you feel the need to say some children are wanted and some are not and that is 'your' choice alone - it's not, it never was, and those women who give birth to their special needs child or their 'unwanted' ( like hell ) child should be subject to your subjective thought. I will not be ruled by this, I will be ruled by somebody who asks and gives MORE than this tiny narrow view of a comfortable life - life is not comfortable, it's hard sometimes, but it's good too. Ask any single mum who risks everything for the sake of keeping her tiny child, that she loved from the moment she felt the first flutter of life, and decided her fate.

    LMAO, I have to say that I'm finding your arguments opaque to the point of incomprehensible. I have no idea why you introduced the premise of children with special needs. The single Mum whose heart soared when she felt her baby moving, nobody is seeking to take meaning away from this. The difference between a 'wanted' and 'unwanted' pregnancy is vast indeed.

    I have no idea why you 'resent' Obliq for 'feel(ing) the need to say that some children are wanted and some are not' when it is hardly a matter of Obliq's (or anyone's) opinion and more a fact of life. Some pregnancies are unwanted, that's all there is to it. That you should chastise Obliq for speaking on behalf of unhappy Mums-to-be means you wish to dismiss their situations, their feelings? If there is anyone in this conversation 'degrading' the rights and experiences of women, it is you.


  • #683
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    doctoremma wrote: »
    The difference between a 'wanted' and 'unwanted' pregnancy is vast indeed.
    .

    Thankyou Dr.Emma. That there are people here who don't recognise the actual mental and physical implications of your sentence above saddens me greatly.

    There is such a chasm between people who have some understanding of this and others who won't let the thought enter their heads, that it seems pointless continuing to try and even ask them why they think their morals are so "true".

    I think I'm done here.


  • #684
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm a human being who can observe reality. It doesn't matter very much who I am. Truth is truth. Postmodernism is an untenable 20th century philosophy. It's major flaw is to say that truth is entirely subjective, ironically the only truth is that there is no truth from that perspective. However, I and many others disagree with that approach, because irrespective of what people think the human foetus and the human embryo are alive in the womb. They are human life biologically.

    I don't agree with the POV that human rights are constructed by anybody. People have an innate knowledge of what is right and wrong thanks to the conscience.

    I don't think it does. The only reason I'm against abortion is because I acknowledge the reality that the embryo / foetus is a human life and I am opposed to those who think it is OK to kill as a matter of a choice.

    You and Obliq are somewhat talking past each other. Realism vs. Relativism vs Postmodernism vs Dadaist surrealism is entirely irrelevant if people can't even begin to construct a meaningful discourse. Within the pro-choice community, there are two camps (more or less) you should be engaged with.

    The first camp rejects your premise that a foetus is a human life. They would say a foetus is no more a human life than a skin cell is human life. They hold this position because they find the definitions of humanity tendered by pro-lifers (Unique DNA, self-contained cellular infrastructure, potential to grow and so on.) as arbitrary and irrelevant. To engage this camp it is not sufficient to simply repeat your criteria for what is and isn't a human being. You must argue why your definition is more suitable than theirs, which hinges on the capacity for thought, awareness, personhood, suffering, cognition, etcetera.

    The second camp agrees with your "reality" that a foetus is a human life, or at the very least, finds it irrelevant. They argue that a person is not obligated to submit their body for the good of another, even if it is a life or death situation, and even if the person is responsible for the situation. Again, it is not sufficient to simply repeat your criteria for what rights people have. You must argue why your understanding between the clash of rights between the mother and the unborn is more appropriate than the pro-choice position.


  • #685
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Morbert wrote: »
    You and Obliq are somewhat talking past each other. Realism vs. Relativism vs Postmodernism vs Dadaist surrealism is entirely irrelevant if people can't even begin to construct a meaningful discourse. Within the pro-choice community, there are two camps (more or less) you should be engaged with.

    The first camp rejects your premise that a foetus is a human life. They would say a foetus is no more a human life than a skin cell is human life. They hold this position because they find the definitions of humanity tendered by pro-lifers (Unique DNA, self-contained cellular infrastructure, potential to grow and so on.) as arbitrary and irrelevant. To engage this camp it is not sufficient to simply repeat your criteria for what is and isn't a human being. You must argue why your definition is more suitable than theirs, which hinges on the capacity for thought, awareness, personhood, suffering, cognition, etcetera.
    Like I have said, people who start defining Human Beings by their current capacity for thought, awareness, personhood, suffering, cognition, etc are in very dangerous territory indeed.
    Does this mean that somebody with Alzheimer's Disease ... or a hundred other mentally or physically debilitating diseases ... lose their Humanity ... and therefore their right to life ... in this 'brave new world' of 'perfect people' living 'perfect lives' ... in 'ideal circumstances' ... where the solution for everyone who isn't so lucky, is to kill them?

    Morbert wrote: »
    The second camp agrees with your "reality" that a foetus is a human life, or at the very least, finds it irrelevant. They argue that a person is not obligated to submit their body for the good of another, even if it is a life or death situation, and even if the person is responsible for the situation. Again, it is not sufficient to simply repeat your criteria for what rights people have. You must argue why your understanding between the clash of rights between the mother and the unborn is more appropriate than the pro-choice position.
    I note that you have put 'reality' in inverted commas ... as you appear to think that other people have a 'reality' that is different to philologos.
    Can I remind you that altered states of reality are a clinical sign of insanity ... but leaving this obvious issue aside ... this is another very dangerous concept ... that can potentially licence somebody, at least in their own mind, to kill somebody else, on the arbitrary whim that the other person isn't a Human in their 'reality' ... when they are objectively and therefore in reality a full Human Being.

    No woman is obligated to become pregnant ... but once she does, she has an obligation to see the pregnancy through to term. Its akin to the fact that a surgeon isn't obligated to operate on you ... but once s/he starts to operate on you ... they have an obligation to see the surgery through to completion ... because, if they abort the operation and 'down tools' mid-way through your operation, they will likely kill you ... and they shouldn't have started the operation, in the first place, if they weren't prepared to see it through to completion.


  • #686
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by doctoremma
    The difference between a 'wanted' and 'unwanted' pregnancy is vast indeed.

    Obliq
    Thank you Dr.Emma. That there are people here who don't recognise the actual mental and physical implications of your sentence above saddens me greatly.

    There is such a chasm between people who have some understanding of this and others who won't let the thought enter their heads, that it seems pointless continuing to try and even ask them why they think their morals are so "true".

    I think I'm done here.
    There are also 'wanted' and 'unwanted' born children ... and there are even 'wanted' and 'unwanted' parents ...
    ... but the solution to any 'unwanted' people can never be to kill them ... even where the 'unwanted' person is making some temporary demand upon you!!!

    ... otherwise nobody is safe if anybody can arbitrarily decide to kill us with legal impunity, on the basis that we are 'unwanted' within their 'reality'!!!!
    ... this is the road to anarchy ... and insanity!!!
    ... where the 'strong' kill the 'weak' ... just because they want to ... and can do so, with full legal impunity on some spurious self-serving basis!!!


  • #687
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Morbert wrote: »
    You and Obliq are somewhat talking past each other. Realism vs. Relativism vs Postmodernism vs Dadaist surrealism is entirely irrelevant if people can't even begin to construct a meaningful discourse. Within the pro-choice community, there are two camps (more or less) you should be engaged with.

    It is up to Obliq to make her objection clear. I'm pointing to the objectivity of human life as a reality that must be engaged with rather than ignored. Obliq is pointing towards postmodernism in saying that I should tolerate a belief that undermines the fundemental right to life. I'm saying that I can't do that.
    Morbert wrote: »
    The first camp rejects your premise that a foetus is a human life. They would say a foetus is no more a human life than a skin cell is human life. They hold this position because they find the definitions of humanity tendered by pro-lifers (Unique DNA, self-contained cellular infrastructure, potential to grow and so on.) as arbitrary and irrelevant. To engage this camp it is not sufficient to simply repeat your criteria for what is and isn't a human being. You must argue why your definition is more suitable than theirs, which hinges on the capacity for thought, awareness, personhood, suffering, cognition, etcetera.

    The first camp would be mistaken. The foetus is simply biologically the same human life that is born, that goes through childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death. It is simply illogical to compare that to a human skin cell.

    The clump of cells argument is pointless insofar as we are all "clumps of cells".

    It's nothing about my criteria, it's about what's biologically criteria.
    Morbert wrote: »
    The second camp agrees with your "reality" that a foetus is a human life, or at the very least, finds it irrelevant. They argue that a person is not obligated to submit their body for the good of another, even if it is a life or death situation, and even if the person is responsible for the situation. Again, it is not sufficient to simply repeat your criteria for what rights people have. You must argue why your understanding between the clash of rights between the mother and the unborn is more appropriate than the pro-choice position.

    It doesn't matter a pick to me if other people regard human life as irrelevant. What does matter to me is when people use this as an excuse to justify the unjustifiable.

    It's not sufficient for the pro-choice lobby to deny, or fob off biological reality. It's a poorly thought out argument that fails on a number of logical grounds.


  • #688
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    philologos wrote: »
    The first camp would be mistaken. The foetus is simply biologically the same human life that is born, that goes through childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death. It is simply illogical to compare that to a human skin cell.

    The clump of cells argument is pointless insofar as we are all "clumps of cells".

    It's nothing about my criteria, it's about what's biologically criteria.

    You did not even attempt to respond to what I said, you simply ignored it, and reiterated your absurd scientism. For your convenience, here is the salient point: Your idea that human ethics hinges on biology is absurd (and downright dangerous). Nobody disagrees with the biological facts. People vehemently disagree with the morality you derive from those facts.
    It doesn't matter a pick to me if other people regard human life as irrelevant. What does matter to me is when people use this as an excuse to justify the unjustifiable.

    It's not sufficient for the pro-choice lobby to deny, or fob off biological reality. It's a poorly thought out argument that fails on a number of logical grounds.

    This is straw-man rhetoric, and thus can be dismissed.


  • #689
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    J C wrote: »
    Like I have said, people who start defining Human Beings by their current capacity for thought, awareness, personhood, suffering, cognition, etc are in very dangerous territory indeed.
    Does this mean that somebody with Alzheimer's Disease ... or a hundred other mentally or physically debilitating diseases ... lose their Humanity ... and therefore their right to life ... in this 'brave new world' of 'perfect people' living 'perfect lives' ... in 'ideal circumstances' ... where the solution for everyone who isn't so lucky, is to kill them?

    Firstly, that is a complete straw man. The metric of humanity is never going to be as precise as other, more scientific metrics, but it most certainly isn't simply based on brain function alone, as you imply. If that were the case, then even the act of sleeping would rob you of those rights.

    Secondly, it is no more dangerous (and I would argue far less dangerous) than the notion that rights can be defined by genetic features.
    I note that you have put 'reality' in inverted commas ... as you appear to think that other people have a 'reality' that is different to philologos. <snip>

    That is a ridiculous inference.
    No woman is obligated to become pregnant ... but once she does, she has an obligation to see the pregnancy through to term. Its akin to the fact that a surgeon isn't obligated to operate on you ... but once s/he starts to operate on you ... they have an obligation to see the surgery through to completion ... because, if they abort the operation and 'down tools' mid-way through your operation, they will likely kill you ... and they shouldn't have started the operation, in the first place, if they weren't prepared to see it through to completion.

    This is at least a start at attempting to engage the pro-choice position. Note, however, that your analogy falls apart when considering cases of rape.


  • #690
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Morbert wrote: »

    You did not even attempt to respond to what I said, you simply ignored it, and reiterated your absurd scientism. For your convenience, here is the salient point: Your idea that human ethics hinges on biology is absurd (and downright dangerous). Nobody disagrees with the biological facts. People vehemently disagree with the morality you derive from those facts.



    This is straw-man rhetoric, and thus can be dismissed.

    Your first point essentially was about people denying biological truth.

    The second was essentially about people who deem it to be irrelevant even if true.

    By the by, yes ethics should have some bearing on truth and reality. The base problem seems to be accepting moral subjectivism whereas I and a lot of others would hold to morality being objective.

    I can't ever agree with a position that seems to advocate killing as a choice and one that is so baseless as to use either of the two arguments you provided. Hardly convincing stuff on the basis of reality.


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    The first camp would be mistaken. The foetus is simply biologically the same human life that is born, that goes through childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death. It is simply illogical to compare that to a human skin cell.
    I don't know about you but I am, biologically speaking, immensely different to the single cell I once was. Heck, I'm probably biologically different to the collection of cells I was last week.


Advertisement