Abortion debate thread

robp · 30-04-2013 06:47PM

Jernal wrote: »

Do you have any proof that they choose to ignore it?
At a guess, I'd say Planned Parenthood is opposing these so-called higher medical standards because they're kind of stupid and subversive. I mean, vaginal ultrasound just to see the baby!

But instead of asking me why, why not give your own reasons? And show how Planned Parenthood don't care about women. I find it hard to fathom that they have, as you state, "contempt for women's safety".

The media bias is very easy to observe by just looking at how the story broke. Oh ridiculous subversive measures like having doors, hallways and elevators in the clinic that must fit a stretcher? Crazy huh? They are clearly prioritizing their abortion access agenda at the expense of maternal safety and its not even as if they draw the line at childbirth. Some senior members have shown support for infanticide.

robp · 30-04-2013 06:57PM

eviltwin wrote: »

He is unique. Do you think there are Helmut Gosnells working in the UK? Do you think any of the thousands of Irish women who have had abortions will say their experience was anything like that? These kinds of people exist and thankfully they are rare but the answer to dealing with one person is not to ban the entire practice.

Maybe I should ban my kids from learning to swim pr playing sport because one or two coaches happen to be sex abusers. Maybe I will never eat a takeaway again because the last time I did I got sick. Or should I avoid all beauty treatments because someone I know ended up with a botch job. But that would be totally over the top wouldn't it because people like this are in the minority. Same goes with abortion.

When you can prove this kind of thing is the norm and happening on a regular basis then we'll discuss it, for now just stop clutching at straws.

How many women must die? What exactly is your cut off point? Would Savita style cases have to be the norm for Irish pregnant women for you to take interest in Ireland's abortion laws?

PopePalpatine · 30-04-2013 07:02PM

Jernal wrote: »

Do you have any proof that they choose to ignore it?

It turns out that the media hasn't ignored it:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/04/us...-gosnell-trial
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51647972/n.../#.UXm2h7V7JEI
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41212187/n...kermit_gosnell

Turtwig · 30-04-2013 07:05PM

robp wrote: »

The media bias is very easy to observe by just looking at how the story broke.

Good! If it's so easy then you should have little difficulty in demonstrating it.

Can you show where the measures below are exactly the ones that Planned Parenthood have opposed. Or is the stretcher just one little bit of a myriad of proposed changes that might actually cripple the effectiveness of a clinic?

Oh ridiculous subversive measures like having doors, hallways and elevators in the clinic that must fit a stretcher?

Fanny Cradock · 30-04-2013 08:50PM

lazygal wrote: »

That's all lovely.

Now, back in the real world women have been terminating/aborting/killing the unborn since time began. Why do you want to make that difficult?

I don't think one can compare legalizing wife beating with abortion/terminations/killing the unborn. I don't agree with anyone being subject to the will of another when it could cause them harm, as forced pregnancy and childbirth can.

I note that in no way did you substantively address my post. Instead, you side-stepped it and repeated yourself.

A has happened since time began. Therefore we should allow A.
B has happened since time began. Therefore we should allow B.

Can you tell me what the logical difference between these two statements is?

Please note that I have not compared abortion to wife beating. What I've done is applied the same logic you used to to justify justify abortion and applied it to a position you wont agree with.

Why do I oppose abortion in all but the the rarest of cases? That's because I think that the unborn is a human and humans have inherent worth. If the unborn is human then what could possibly justify ending her life?

We haven't gotten to the point of defining what the unborn is. We can argue the philosophy over when person-hood begins, but what is not up for debate is at what point a whole and distinct human individual is created. We call this conception and I think that just about any embryology book will recognise this.

@Jernal

I'd like to respond to your post RE Singer but it might have to wait a couple of days.

@PopePalpatine

Somewhat ironic that your first link is broken.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the coverage has been like in the US over the Gosnell case. I've certainly heard it claimed that the media have been slow to take the story up. Indeed, 72 members of Congress thought the coverage so muted that they signed a letter and sent it to ABC News to express their concerns.

Turtwig · 30-04-2013 09:56PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

@Jernal

I'd like to respond to your post RE Singer but it might have to wait a couple of days.

Take your time.

I'm not his biggest fan anyway so if you don't respond to it I'll probably never know what his actual position was/is. But if takes you a really long time, PM me because I might miss your response. Either way. I'll read it, so take your time.

robp · 30-04-2013 11:06PM

Jernal wrote: »

Good! If it's so easy then you should have little difficulty in demonstrating it.

As a researcher I really don't have the time needed to craft an elegant plot showing this clearly but its well documented. The three major national US television networks and NYT and WSJ more less ignored it. The USAtoday broke the trial element of the story and also highlighted the blackout. The USAtoday is not partisan.

Jernal wrote: »

Can you show where the measures below are exactly the ones that Planned Parenthood have opposed. Or is the stretcher just one little bit of a myriad of proposed changes that might actually cripple the effectiveness of a clinic?

If that was the case why didn't they propose a revised version? The law relating to stretcher access was passed in 2011 and Planner Parenthood are still bringing it up in interviews. These guys are the tea baggers of left. Irrationally set against evidence based legislation. Can you show why any of these regulations are subversive or stupid? Or maybe why you are defending PP when you don't even know the details?

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It turns out that the media hasn't ignored it:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/04/us...-gosnell-trial
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51647972/n.../#.UXm2h7V7JEI
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41212187/n...kermit_gosnell

Read my post! I wrote ignore as long as possible. Journalists were successful in highlighting it internationally. It took effort and a tweetfest and it worked to an extent.

eviltwin · 01-05-2013 07:42AM

robp wrote: »

How many women must die? What exactly is your cut off point? Would Savita style cases have to be the norm for Irish pregnant women for you to take interest in Ireland's abortion laws?

Why do you think I'm not? Not sure what you mean by cut off point either.

newmug · 01-05-2013 08:34AM

So it has basically come to pass. Abortion legislation is being announced today. A sad day for children, women, Ireland, humanity and Christianity as a whole. Ironic for Catholics too that it is being announced on May Day, Mary being Gods female patron. I just cant understand it. As a parent, if my child needed a heart transplant, I would gladly give him mine. We are one step further away from being human, ond one step closer to being animals today.

lazygal · 01-05-2013 08:44AM

newmug wrote: »

So it has basically come to pass. Abortion legislation is being announced today. A sad day for children, women, Ireland, humanity and Christianity as a whole. Ironic for Catholics too that it is being announced on May Day, Mary being Gods female patron. I just cant understand it. As a parent, if my child needed a heart transplant, I would gladly give him mine. We are one step further away from being human, ond one step closer to being animals today.

As a pregnant parent I'm happy my child won't be left motherless because of medical and legal confusion.

robp · 01-05-2013 09:49AM

Its a very sad moment but it is has not yet passed. So its not a time to be disheartened. There is still time and a great deal of momentum which it can be fought with.

lazygal wrote: »

As a pregnant parent I'm happy my child won't be left motherless because of medical and legal confusion.

Ironic that would you say that as apart from the suicide element the bill basically replicates what is already in the medical council guidelines except now a complex checking system is in place. Doctors are typically well educated but they always will refer to the medical guidelines before legislation. So so many reasons to be against this bill but suicide is the one key issue. Its inclusion is irrational and against all medical evidence yet the Gov has the cheek to call this the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill. Of course we all know why there really is support for this bill and its not relating too clarity.

Zombrex · 01-05-2013 10:11AM

newmug wrote: »

As a parent, if my child needed a heart transplant, I would gladly give him mine. We are one step further away from being human, ond one step closer to being animals today.

As a parent if your child was dying in a hospital and an abortion would save her life, would you allow your child to die? Explain why you would take away the right to bodily autonomy from your own child, even if her life was at risk?

It is funny about how people go on about what they would do for their own children, but seem perfectly happy that once their children reach a certain age to start restricting their children's rights. To paraphrase pro-life movement, children are for life not just while they are small and cute.

robp · 01-05-2013 11:01AM

Zombrex wrote: »

As a parent if your child was dying in a hospital and an abortion would save her life, would you allow your child to die? Explain why you would take away the right to bodily autonomy from your own child, even if her life was at risk?

It is funny about how people go on about what they would do for their own children, but seem perfectly happy that once their children reach a certain age to start restricting their children's rights. To paraphrase pro-life movement, children are for life not just while they are small and cute.

First of all, this an appeal to personal intuition, not objective reason. It’s hinged on the questioner’s hope to stymie the poster's opponent’s instincts, not knowledge. Regardless of what one’s answer is, it does not change the empirically indisputable reality that an embryo is alive and human in every way that science defines individual life and membership in Club Homo sapiens. So even if the dilemma were to expose something about the person doing the saving, it would demonstrate nothing about the people in the dilemma and nothing about best practise medicine.

Zombrex · 01-05-2013 11:10AM

robp wrote: »

First of all, this an appeal to personal intuition, not objective reason. It’s hinged on the questioner’s hope to stymie the poster's opponent’s instincts, not knowledge.

What, as opposed to saying that as a parent they would give their child a heart if they could

robp wrote: »

Regardless of what one’s answer is, it does not change the empirically indisputable reality that an embryo is alive and human in every way that science defines individual life and membership in Club Homo sapiens.

And it also doesn't change the empirically indisputable reality that the embryo is inside the woman's body (emphasis on "woman's body")

Why does anyone (the fetus, the State, the man, the priest, the grandmother) control/own the woman's body more than she does?

robp wrote: »

So even if the dilemma were to expose something about the person doing the saving, it would demonstrate nothing about the people in the dilemma and nothing about best practise medicine.

It demonstrates the hypocrisy about claiming that as a parent the person is instead in protecting their children but then, when their children reach child bearing ages, they trample all over their child's right to bodily autonomy.

robp · 01-05-2013 11:23AM

Zombrex wrote: »

What, as opposed to saying that as a parent they would give their child a heart if they could

And it also doesn't change the empirically indisputable reality that the embryo is inside the woman's body (emphasis on "woman's body")

Why does anyone (the fetus, the State, the man, the priest, the grandmother) control/own the woman's body more than she does?

It demonstrates the hypocrisy about claiming that as a parent the person is instead in protecting their children but then, when their children reach child bearing ages, they trample all over their child's right to bodily autonomy.

You don't really believe the bodily autonomy myth do you? I didn't think pro abortion people actually believed that. I can think of dozens of real world examples of how it is does not apply and why it cannot apply . Would you let a women like in the following case in Waterford die?

DOCTORS safely delivered a baby by Caesarean section yesterday just hours after a specially convened hearing of the High Court, where lawyers for Waterford Regional Hospital made an emergency application to carry out the procedure on the mother who had refused to co-operate with medical staff.

Link

Zombrex · 01-05-2013 11:37AM

robp wrote: »

You don't really believe the bodily autonomy myth do you?

Define the context you are using "myth" here please.

Actually define it while I'm removing your kidneys because I need one of them

robp wrote: »

I didn't think pro abortion people actually believed that.

Well given your grasp of the pro-choice argument, I can believe that.

But they do. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. Its why you sign consent forms before going hospital, it is why you can refuse to be an organ donor, it is why you can refuse medical care if it goes against your religion, it is why you can choose to starve yourself to death if you wish.

Bodily autonomy is considered a fundamental human right, if not the fundamental human right that all other rights derive from, the concept that you are the master of your own person hood (both mind and body)

robp wrote: »

I can think of dozens of examples of how it is does not apply.

You can? Please do share

robp wrote: »

Would you let a women like in the following case in Waterford die? Link

Yes.

What you think doctors should not have to have consent from their patient to carry out an invasive medical procedure?

So I can have your kidney, can I?

robp · 01-05-2013 11:58AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Bodily autonomy is considered a fundamental human right, if not the fundamental human right that all other rights derive from, the concept that you are the master of your own person hood (both mind and body)
/QUOTE]

Where?

robp · 01-05-2013 12:28PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Define the context you are using "myth" here please.

Actually define it while I'm removing your kidneys because I need one of them

Well given your grasp of the pro-choice argument, I can believe that.

But they do. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. Its why you sign consent forms before going hospital, it is why you can refuse to be an organ donor, it is why you can refuse medical care if it goes against your religion, it is why you can choose to starve yourself to death if you wish.

Bodily autonomy is considered a fundamental human right, if not the fundamental human right that all other rights derive from, the concept that you are the master of your own person hood (both mind and body)

You can? Please do share

Yes.

What you think doctors should not have to have consent from their patient to carry out an invasive medical procedure?

So I can have your kidney, can I?

“to request that [the unborn’s] life be forfeited for the alleged benefit of another [for their bodily autonomy] is to violate a basic intuition of ethical judgment: ‘we may never kill innocent person B to save person A.’ For example, ‘we cannot kill John by removing a vital organ in order to save Mary, who needs it. This is not a lack of compassion for Mary; it is the refusal to commit murder, even for a good cause.’” Kidney donation doesn't kill people outright but it has plenty of health risks.

Zombrex · 01-05-2013 12:30PM

robp wrote: »

Zombrex wrote: »

Bodily autonomy is considered a fundamental human right, if not the fundamental human right that all other rights derive from, the concept that you are the master of your own person hood (both mind and body)

Where?

Any country that has a privacy concept in their laws or constitution. And in most countries all rights extend from that. For example

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Zombrex · 01-05-2013 12:40PM

robp wrote: »

For example, ‘we cannot kill John by removing a vital organ in order to save Mary, who needs it. This is not a lack of compassion for Mary; it is the refusal to commit murder, even for a good cause.’” Kidney donation doesn't kill people outright but it has plenty of health risks.

Correct.

And you cannot use the woman's body to sustain the life of the foetus either, not without her consent. It is her body, she decides what it is used for. Even if that means the foetus will die without the woman's body (as you say even if Mary dies without John's kidney you cannot take John's kidney)

Pregnancy does not outright kill people, but it has plenty of health risks. It is up the woman if she wishes to allow the pregnancy to continue (ie allow her body to be used to sustain the life of the foetus), in exactly the same way it is your right to decide if you will or won't consent to a medical produce to help someone else (kidney transplant, blood transfusion etc). You are not forced to have a medical produce to help someone else simply because doctors decide the risks to you are small. It is always your decision how your body is used. It is always the woman's decision how her body is used.

Glad we are in agreement.

Fanny Cradock · 01-05-2013 01:13PM

But a human isn't equivalent to a kidney. If we apply the same logic of autonomy to a family who no longer feels the need to sustain the life of their toddler then we would howl in outrage. The argument for bodily autonomy only carries weight if we first assume that the unborn is not human or that they are human but we decide not to grant them the same right to life because they have not reached some arbitrary milestone or made the trip of 8 inches down the birth canal.

Zombrex · 01-05-2013 01:27PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But a human isn't equivalent to a kidney.

I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying that I can take your kidney from you without your consent if it means it saves my life, because my life is worth more than your kidney? Surely that means everyone should have their kidney removed until we have enough donors for everyone needing a new kidney?

In the comparison the womb is equivalent to the kidney. You might not agree, but I can not use your kidney to sustain my life. That is the case even if I die. And the foetus has no more right to use the woman's womb to sustain her life.

You choose what happens to your kidney and the woman chooses what happens to her womb. That is the principle of bodily autonomy. And if anyone is arguing that shouldn't be the case please think it through to its conclusion, why can't we take kidneys from people who don't consent in order to save others, or any organ that someone else needs to live.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If we apply the same logic of autonomy to a family who no longer feels the need to sustain the life of their toddler then we would howl in outrage.

We already do, which is why women are not legally required to breast feed. There is a strong argument that they should (just like you can make an argument that someone should keep their baby). But we are not going to force them, as it is their body.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The argument for bodily autonomy only carries weight if we first assume that the unborn is not human or that they are human but we decide not to grant them the same right to life because they have not reached some arbitrary milestone or made the trip of 8 inches down the birth canal.

What?

Can you point out when we require someone to give up a kidney (or any other violation of their bodily autonomy) after the person who needs the body has reached a certain age?

We don't do this for children after they are born (you don't legally have to give your blood, bone marrow, skin, breast milk etc to your child), so why would we do this before they are born?

loveisdivine · 01-05-2013 01:42PM

I'd just like to ask the pro-life side why they think its ok to use this Gosnell case to "further their agenda" when they slammed the pro choice side for supposedly doing the same thing with the Savita case?

I remember Youth Defence were up in arms on their FB page, giving out that pro-aborts was using "this poor womans death" to further a pro abortion agenda.

Seems to me they are now doing that exact same thing themselves.

robp · 01-05-2013 02:02PM

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying that I can take your kidney from you without your consent if it means it saves my life, because my life is worth more than your kidney? Surely that means everyone should have their kidney removed until we have enough donors for everyone needing a new kidney?

In the comparison the womb is equivalent to the kidney. You might not agree, but I can not use your kidney to sustain my life. That is the case even if I die. And the foetus has no more right to use the woman's womb to sustain her life.

You choose what happens to your kidney and the woman chooses what happens to her womb. That is the principle of bodily autonomy. And if anyone is arguing that shouldn't be the case please think it through to its conclusion, why can't we take kidneys from people who don't consent in order to save others, or any organ that someone else needs to live.

We already do, which is why women are not legally required to breast feed. There is a strong argument that they should (just like you can make an argument that someone should keep their baby). But we are not going to force them, as it is their body.

What?

Can you point out when we require someone to give up a kidney (or any other violation of their bodily autonomy) after the person who needs the body has reached a certain age?

We don't do this for children after they are born (you don't legally have to give your blood, bone marrow, skin, breast milk etc to your child), so why would we do this before they are born?

The American quote you posted grants explicitly the right to life first and foremost, just like the Irish constitution and the EU's fundamental rights and most other chapters of human rights. This clearly shows bodily autonomy is not the most fundamental right as you falsely claim. The concept of bodily integrity is recognised in Ireland as an unenumerated right but it has never been used to grant the right to abortion despite many attempts. Without the right to life having a right to bodily integrity would be meaningless. The right to life always takes precedence of the right to bodily integrity. This isn't novel ground. Its all been well tested in Irish and European courts. Look at the ABC case. Your argument has been tested and has failed miserably.

loveisdivine wrote: »

I'd just like to ask the pro-life side why they think its ok to use this Gosnell case to "further their agenda" when they slammed the pro choice side for supposedly doing the same thing with the Savita case?

I remember Youth Defence were up in arms on their FB page, giving out that pro-aborts was using "this poor womans death" to further a pro abortion agenda.

Seems to me they are now doing that exact same thing themselves.

I don't believe martyrology is a wise thing in this age. Bacik and Choice Ireland have wildly indulged in this sensationalism like using her face for their fb pic. Do you see Semika Shaw or Karnamaya Mongar picture on YD's fb pic? Do pro life activists smear their pictures to the opposition organisations doors with faeces like the charming pro choice people have?

I recommend this on why abortion clinic regulation is necessary.

Morbert · 01-05-2013 02:02PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But a human isn't equivalent to a kidney. If we apply the same logic of autonomy to a family who no longer feels the need to sustain the life of their toddler then we would howl in outrage. The argument for bodily autonomy only carries weight if we first assume that the unborn is not human or that they are human but we decide not to grant them the same right to life because they have not reached some arbitrary milestone or made the trip of 8 inches down the birth canal.

The bodily autonomy argument is considerably stronger than that, especially when considering rape cases. The argument says that, whether or not the unborn is human, no woman should be forced into submitting her body to sustain another. And while I can somewhat sympathise with those who would debate this position in some cases, I cannot understand how, in instances of rape, the pro-life side would agree with commandeering the woman's body to make sure the unborn survives.

Toddlers, of course, don't infringe on autonomy, and can always be put up for adoption.

Fanny Cradock · 01-05-2013 02:03PM

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying that I can take your kidney from you without your consent if it means it saves my life, because my life is worth more than your kidney? Surely that means everyone should have their kidney removed until we have enough donors for everyone needing a new kidney?

In the comparison the womb is equivalent to the kidney. You might not agree, but I can not use your kidney to sustain my life. That is the case even if I die. And the foetus has no more right to use the woman's womb to sustain her life.

You choose what happens to your kidney and the woman chooses what happens to her womb. That is the principle of bodily autonomy. And if anyone is arguing that shouldn't be the case please think it through to its conclusion, why can't we take kidneys from people who don't consent in order to save others, or any organ that someone else needs to live.

We already do, which is why women are not legally required to breast feed. There is a strong argument that they should (just like you can make an argument that someone should keep their baby). But we are not going to force them, as it is their body.

What?

Can you point out when we require someone to give up a kidney (or any other violation of their bodily autonomy) after the person who needs the body has reached a certain age?

We don't do this for children after they are born (you don't legally have to give your blood, bone marrow, skin, breast milk etc to your child), so why would we do this before they are born?

I'm not sure why you are still talking about kidneys. Do you understand my position? I would have thought that I've made it clear in my last posts.

To reiterate, if the unborn is not human then an abortion just just like getting a mole removed. There should be no shame or psychological trauma associated with it. However, if the unborn is human then your kidney comparison and justification for abortion fails.

You seem to be arguing that we can't take kidneys because of bodily autonomy but we can kill other humans - and in so doing destroy their autonomy. In this case we should be able to kill newborns if we don't what to shoulder the responsibility of keeping them around.

Morbert · 01-05-2013 02:10PM

robp wrote: »

The American quote you posted grants explicitly the right to life first and foremost, just like the Irish constitution and the EU's fundamental rights and most other chapters of human rights. This clearly shows bodily autonomy is not the most fundamental right as you falsely claim. The concept of bodily integrity is recognised in Ireland as an unenumerated right but it has never been used to grant the right to abortion despite many attempts. Without the right to life having a right to bodily integrity would be meaningless. The right to life always takes precedence of the right to bodily integrity. This isn't novel ground. Its all been well tested in Irish and European courts. Look at the ABC case. Your argument has been tested and has failed miserably.

The "failed" argument is the reason why abortion is widely available across the western world. It is also, I suspect, the reason Ireland permits women to have abortions provided the have them in the U.K.

The elephant in the room is that Irish women regularly have abortions. If Ireland refused travel for those having abortions, the right to an abortion would very quickly become a part of Irish law. Politicians have very cleverly installed a "valve" to prevent societal pressure from building by allowing citizens to have abortions abroad. It allows Ireland to maintain its pro-life status without suffering much of the backlash.

Zombrex · 01-05-2013 02:19PM

robp wrote: »

The American quote you posted grants explicitly the right to life first and foremost, just like the Irish constitution and the EU's fundamental rights and most other chapters of human rights.

You don't seem to understand what unalienable means.

robp wrote: »

This clearly shows bodily autonomy is not the most fundamental right as you falsely claim. The concept of bodily integrity is recognised in Ireland as an unenumerated right but it has never been used to grant the right to abortion despite many attempts. Without the right to life having a right to bodily integrity would be meaningless.

And without the right to bodily integrity the right to life would be meaningless.

Which is why the document does not say right to life, it says the right to life and liberty.

Life without protection of liberty is tyranny. The North Koreans are technically alive, but I'm not sure they are beaming with admiration for how well the government is protecting their "most important right"

robp wrote: »

The right to life always takes precedence of the right to bodily integrity.

Er no, if it was we would be harvesting organs from people and it would be fine so long as we kept them alive. Life without liberty is not a right.

robp wrote: »

This isn't novel ground. Its all been well tested in Irish and European courts. Look at the ABC case. Your argument has been tested and has failed miserably.

Rob I'm not even sure you understand what the argument is, let alone if you think it has failed or not.

If life trumps liberty privacy and bodily integrity, why do you not harvest organs from each other? Why do we not use non-lethal torture? Why do we not own slaves so long as we keep them alive?

The idea that sustaining a persons life trumps the liberty of others is so silly it is hard to know where to begin.

And frankly I don't for a minute believe you actually subscribe to it. You are just flailing around trying to find an argument for why this concept, which everyone recognizes, should apply to everyone but the pregnant mother.

Zombrex · 01-05-2013 02:31PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure why you are still talking about kidneys.

I'm talking about kidneys because everyone else, including yourself, were talking about kidneys. You mentioned kidneys in your last post the one I replied to

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you understand my position? I would have thought that I've made it clear in my last posts.

Your position seems to be that a human life is worth more than a kidney. Which I would agree with, but I'm not sure what wider point you are trying to make with that. It sounds like you are saying therefore we should take kidney's from people who don't need them to survive in order to allow someone with kidney failure to survive, because the individual kidney is worth less than the person dying.

If that wasn't your point then I don't know what you meant by the bit I quoted above.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

To reiterate, if the unborn is not human then an abortion just just like getting a mole removed. There should be no shame or psychological trauma associated with it. However, if the unborn is human then your kidney comparison and justification for abortion fails.

The foetus is not being compared to the kidney. The woman's womb is the kidney in the analogy. The foetus is the person dying of renal failure and who needs someone else's kidney to live.

And that person can be a human as you like, it doesn't effect the analogy. There is no need to get into whether the foetus is or isn't a human person. Assume for argument's sake that they are. They are a person with all the rights everyone else has.

And just like everyone else the foetus does not have the right to use the woman's womb without consent to sustain its life. Or anyone else for that matter. The foetus cannot have your kidney either.

Now you might disagree, you might think you can take my kidney if it means you would die without it. But that would be a violation of the right of bodily integrity.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You seem to be arguing that we can't take kidneys because of bodily autonomy but we can kill other humans - and in so doing destroy their autonomy.

We cannot take kidneys because of bodily autonomy nor can we take wombs.

The principle is pretty simple, if you have an argument for why the mother's womb is the exception I'm all ears.

robp · 01-05-2013 03:16PM

Zombrex wrote: »

You don't seem to understand what unalienable means.

And without the right to bodily integrity the right to life would be meaningless.

Which is why the document does not say right to life, it says the right to life and liberty.

Life without protection of liberty is tyranny. The North Koreans are technically alive, but I'm not sure they are beaming with admiration for how well the government is protecting their "most important right"

Er no, if it was we would be harvesting organs from people and it would be fine so long as we kept them alive. Life without liberty is not a right.

Rob I'm not even sure you understand what the argument is, let alone if you think it has failed or not.

If life trumps liberty privacy and bodily integrity, why do you not harvest organs from each other? Why do we not use non-lethal torture? Why do we not own slaves so long as we keep them alive?

The idea that sustaining a persons life trumps the liberty of others is so silly it is hard to know where to begin.

And frankly I don't for a minute believe you actually subscribe to it. You are just flailing around trying to find an argument for why this concept, which everyone recognizes, should apply to everyone but the pregnant mother.

Liberty is not equal to bodily integrity or bodily autonomy. Your muddled on this. Its an absolutely separate concept. I have never heard of people claiming that its the same. Liberty and bodily integrity and autonomy are treated separately in any body of laws eg the EU's fundamental rights. They are not the same thing.
Anyway back to the topic in hand. A right to bodily integrity does not yield the right to abortion.

it was reaffirmed recently in the P. and S. v. Poland, case, the Grand Chamber of the Court “has held that Article 8 [guaranteeing personal autonomy] cannot be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion” in A. B. and C. v. Ireland

Link

Morbert wrote: »

The elephant in the room is that Irish women regularly have abortions. If Ireland refused travel for those having abortions, the right to an abortion would very quickly become a part of Irish law. Politicians have very cleverly installed a "valve" to prevent societal pressure from building by allowing citizens to have abortions abroad. It allows Ireland to maintain its pro-life status without suffering much of the backlash.

That is a false argument. You could same the same about any number of restricted items and practices in Ireland. For examples Irish insolvency laws. Irish bankrupt businesspeople are exported to the UK due to more relaxed rules. At the end of the day the rate of abortion by Irish women is well below our peers even when you factor in abortion pills taken in Ireland. Abortion by request is illegal in 3 out of 4 countries in the world.

Abortion debate thread

Comments