Abortion debate thread

Fanny Cradock · 07-05-2013 10:26PM

J C wrote: »

Obliq, being pro-life isn't an exclusively Christian or even Judeo-Christian idea ... there are strong scientific and philosophical (as well as Biblical) arguments against procured abortion - and I have told you that I am just as happy discussing the scientific and philospohical arguments, as I am with the Theological arguments.

It might suit your agenda to dismiss all pro-life people as 'Christian fundamentalists' or 'right-wing Catholics' ... but the reality is that it is an instinctive Human reaction to protect their children ... both born and unborn - and it is a widely held belief amongst people of all religions and none that the taking of innocent Human life is morally wrong except in extremis where it is unavoidable in order to save other Human life, that is being imminently threatened.

I'd agree with much of that. It's very possible to argue against abortion as a purely secular endeavour. Arguably it's more difficult to ground the notion of inalienable rights and so forth but nevertheless they are to be applauded. More is the shame that some Christians have apparently been unwelcoming. It makes you wonder what their motivations are.

Incidentally, I've not argued against abortion from a specifically religious perspective. The same could be said for people like Francis Beckwith and Scott Klusendorf who don't necessarily appeal to religion to make their case.

Fanny Cradock · 07-05-2013 10:31PM

I haven't seen the video in question, but you now speak for all women on Boards?

Zombrex · 07-05-2013 11:02PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe that I've ignored her answer. In fact, I believe that you have done an excellent job of reproducing what my understanding is (highlighted in bold) and what I've already said. It appears that the law does not compel a doctor to protect the life of a child that has survived an abortion attempt - hence the bill.

Er, not really. The bill was originally introduced to make it law that any child who survived an abortion was taken off their parents and the parents declared unfit.

But you are saying that because you believe the law does not compel the doctor to protect the life of the child (which is in debate), that means when the PP representative says it should be left up to the doctor she is actually saying you should kill the child.

Rather than, you know, what she actually said - It should be left up to the doctor. A doctor who is compelled by medical code of practice to provide medical care to any foetus who is viable.

So again you are not listening to what she said (it should be left to the doctor), you are inserting your own answer as part of the agenda you are pushing that PP must be supporting infanticide.

PP have released another statement clarifying their position and based on amendments to the bill have withdrawn their opposition to the bill. Odd if they were fight the good fight to women to kill their new born children :rolleyes:

The idea that this was about infanticide sounds like a thread that fell out of conspiracy theories. She said one thing, but what she clearly must have meant was ...

Benny_Cake · 07-05-2013 11:08PM

Mod note: Nowanathiest - banned for a week. Ad-hominem attacks on other posters are unacceptable.

Bannasidhe · 07-05-2013 11:11PM

Is there not one person who is opposing the introduction of any legislation on abortion who has even one alternative as to how the government can proceed in a way which would not undermine the legitimacy of the State by ignoring referenda, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?

Any one?

Because that is what you should be putting forward if you really want to win the political argument. And it is, now, a political argument.

J C · 07-05-2013 11:26PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, not really. The bill was originally introduced to make it law that any child who survived an abortion was taken off their parents and the parents declared unfit.

I understand that for 'humane' and other reasons, unborn children above 18 weeks are now routinely euthanized before being aborted ... so it would seem to be extremely unlikely that any aborted children that have a chance of survival ex utero will, in fact, be born alive ... and this law will therefore probably never be required.

Quote prochoiceactionnetwork :-
"In most if not all cases, abortion providers euthanize a third-trimester fetus beforehand by injecting it with digoxin to stop its heart. Some even do this for abortions after 18 weeks. (Physicians have other medical reasons for giving euthanasia drugs to a larger fetus before an abortion, mainly to reduce the difficulty and risk of the procedure.)" Brackets in original.

Fanny Cradock · 08-05-2013 02:00PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, not really. The bill was originally introduced to make it law that any child who survived an abortion was taken off their parents and the parents declared unfit.

One of the items on the bill was that there is a presumption that the parents of the child who has survived an abortion have surrendered their parental rights. However, under Florida law, "this is a rebuttable presumption and a parent of a surrendered newborn infant may claim a newborn infant up until the time the court enters a judgement terminating his or her parental rights".

This is not the same as what you have claimed.

Zombrex wrote: »

But you are saying that because you believe the law does not compel the doctor to protect the life of the child (which is in debate), that means when the PP representative says it should be left up to the doctor she is actually saying you should kill the child.

Before Dubya left office he brought in a federal law that guaranteed abortion survivors the same rights to life as any child. Was the lobbyist even aware of this I wonder? Because of complexities that I don't understand, this law is not necessarily enforced on a State wide basis. Hence this bill.

Centrers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have classified infants who have survived abortions as "individuals" and consequently CMSs are obliged to provide stabilising treatments to such patients. Similarly federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) guarantees that individuals must receive emergency medical treatment in participating hospitals.

Part of the problem is that there is an incongrewity between law and the actual medical practice. Hence, as we have already seen, PP have been caught on video admitting that they leave survivors of abortions to die. This bill adds a burden of duty of care on the medical staff, even if their job is to kill the child. They must act to keep the child alive. They must also keep records of such instances and report any violations. Finally, anyone found breaking the law would be guilty of a first degree misdemeanor.

Zombrex wrote: »

PP have released another statement clarifying their position and based on amendments to the bill have withdrawn their opposition to the bill. Odd if they were fight the good fight to women to kill their new born children :rolleyes:

Do you care to link to the statement?

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2013 02:47PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is there not one person who is opposing the introduction of any legislation on abortion who has even one alternative as to how the government can proceed in a way which would not undermine the legitimacy of the State by ignoring referenda, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?

Any one?

Because that is what you should be putting forward if you really want to win the political argument. And it is, now, a political argument.

No alternative suggestions yet I see....

Fanny Cradock · 08-05-2013 03:47PM

Yes, we should all go home because we aren't legal experts.

Turtwig · 08-05-2013 03:51PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No alternative suggestions yet I see....

Your post is less than a day old, give it a week at least.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2013 03:53PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, we should all go home because we aren't legal experts.

Most of us arn't medical experts either but that hasn't stopped anyone commenting.

But if you are content to rail against the introduction of legislation which is the result of a referendum and a Supreme Court ruling (i.e. government has no choice) without suggesting a viable alternative...

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2013 03:55PM

Jernal wrote: »

Your post is less than a day old, give it a week at least.

I reckon I could be waiting a lot longer than that.

It is a simple fact that government either introduces the required legislation or ignores the Constitution - so which do opponents want?

Zombrex · 08-05-2013 05:10PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you care to link to the statement?

Sure

http://www.ppaction.org/site/PageServer?pagename=fl_fappa_website_news&utm_content=FAPPA&utm_campaign=ppact

Its kinda long, so you might take you a while to twist it into a statement along the lines of "We want to kill infants", but I'm sure you'll get there

Fanny Cradock · 08-05-2013 05:56PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Most of us arn't medical experts either but that hasn't stopped anyone commenting.

Probably because the medical data is fairly clear cut.

Zombrex wrote: »

Sure

http://www.ppaction.org/site/PageServer?pagename=fl_fappa_website_news&utm_content=FAPPA&utm_campaign=ppact

Its kinda long, so you might take you a while to twist it into a statement along the lines of "We want to kill infants", but I'm sure you'll get there

I've already linked to that article. Could it be that you aren't reading my posts?

Anyway, the law will hopefully soon be changed and PP will have no wiggle room. From here on in the life of the child must be protected.

However, given that you have decided to take this to the level of insult, I'll leave it there.

lazygal · 08-05-2013 06:12PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Probably because the medical data is fairly clear cut.

Can you link the to unbiased, peer reviewed medical data on abortion which reinforces the view that its never necessary to save the life of any pregnant woman?

I don't mean fairly clear cut, I mean clear cut, as you said you're not a medical expert so your data mustn't need a lot of interpretation.

I have a background in law, and there's no legal basis for ignoring the results of referendums. The one on judges' pay was implemented within months, as were the results of those on Articles 2 and 3, the Lisbon, Nice and Fiscal treaties and the right to travel and information, whether or not primary legislation was also required.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2013 06:17PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Probably because the medical data is fairly clear cut.

Is it?

Not as clear cut as the legal issue.

The legitimacy of the State lays in the Constitution.
The government is bound by the Constitution.
Failure by government to act according to the Constitution fatally undermines the legitimacy of the State.

Those who are demanding that government refuses to legislate are, in effect, demanding the State itself cease to exist.

Now I have no issue with this in and of itself as I believe we are a failed State and should start all over again. But it would be nice if those who are demanding our government ignore the Constitution were honest about the repercussions should government accede to their demands.

It would mean the end of the First Irish Republic.

If I were of a conservative, Christian, persuasion I don't think I would be eager to start all over again as I suspect the Second Irish Republic would radically different in its ethos (and Constitution) to the First Republic.

Fanny Cradock · 08-05-2013 06:20PM

lazygal wrote: »

Can you link the to unbiased, peer reviewed medical data on abortion which reinforces the view that its never necessary to save the life of any pregnant woman?

If I believed that there was such medical data then I would link to it. But I've not made the claim that ending the life of the unborn can never be justified. Do you understand my position? I've stated it several times already.

lazygal · 08-05-2013 06:30PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If I believed that there was such medical data then I would link to it. But I've not made the claim that ending the life of the unborn can never be justified. Do you understand my position? I've stated it several times already.

Where is the medical data, which you said is fairly clear cut, that backs up your position? Surely if you think its clear cut, you've read it and confirmed it backs up your position?

Fanny Cradock · 08-05-2013 06:32PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is it?

I believe so. For example, we can determine when a whole and distinct human life begins - this would be conception. The really tricky part comes when we discuss the philosophical and ethical issues. For example, you obviously don't think that the unborn are automatically deserving of the right to life. If, however, it was legal in Ireland to for parents to kill children up to 1 year old I suspect that you would not be arguing that there is nothing we can do about it because of the Constitution. In fact, I suspect that we wouldn't be talking about the "Second Irish Republic" at all.

Fanny Cradock · 08-05-2013 06:33PM

lazygal wrote: »

Where is the medical data, which you said is fairly clear cut, that backs up your position? Surely if you think its clear cut, you've read it and confirmed it backs up your position?

What exactly do you think my position is lazygal? What claim do you think I'm making?

lazygal · 08-05-2013 06:38PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What exactly do you think my position is lazygal? What claim do you think I'm making?

I want to see the fairly clear cut medical data to which you referred, which is clearer than the legal position.

I don't know of any unbiased, peer reviewed, definitive data on when 'life' begins. What about twins with the same genes, are they distinct life? Or frozen embryos, or blystocysts used in IVF treatment, but never implanted? Or the naturally occurring miscarriages? Should I be able to claim child benefit from the moment of conception? Should the foetus inside me be given legal reprensentation, based on the fairly clear cut current medical evidence?

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2013 06:43PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I believe so. For example, we can determine when a whole and distinct human life begins - this would be conception. The really tricky part comes when we discuss the philosophical and ethical issues. For example, you obviously don't think that the unborn are automatically deserving of the right to life. If, however, it was legal in Ireland to for parents to kill children up to 1 year old I suspect that you would not be arguing that there is nothing we can do about it because of the Constitution. In fact, I suspect that we wouldn't be talking about the "Second Irish Republic" at all.

Indeed, I would be arguing for a referendum. But since the 'killing' of 1 year olds is not and has never been legal in Ireland nor would such a measure be passed if put to the electorate it's a moot point.

I am arguing for a referendum now too. But why arn't the pro-life lobbying for one?

What they are calling for it for government to deliberately and knowingly ignore the Constitution - which is a very different thing.

I suspect it is because they know in a referendum they would loose.

Zombrex · 08-05-2013 07:03PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've already linked to that article.

You are the one who asked for the statement. If you have already read that article I can only assume you missed the update, or read it before the update. Either way, that is where the statement is.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Anyway, the law will hopefully soon be changed and PP will have no wiggle room.

You still haven't supported your original assertion that PP were looking to carry out infancide. That was your assumption based on a PP representative saying they believe it should be left to the doctor.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, given that you have decided to take this to the level of insult, I'll leave it there.

Calling it as a I see it Fanny. You completely bent over backwards to try and find a way for the original statement to support infanticide, I wouldn't hold out any hope you wouldn't do the same in the future.

You want PP to support infanticide so you can denounce them as monsters. Its easier that way.

nagirrac · 08-05-2013 07:27PM

There is no consensus in the medical community on when life begins. Genetics, Embryology and Neurology all give different answers (conception, 14 days and 24-26 weeks respectively). Therefore, like most ethical questions, science can inform the question but not answer the question. The question may in fact be unanswerable.

This is why abortion is such a difficult and emotional question. At the end of the day it is an ethical question that can only be answered by subjective opinion. That is also why the issue puts legislators in such a difficult position, but thats their role, to be leaders and not sheep. In my opinion, the legal profession should only decide when "personhood" is defined, and before that point state law should stay out of decisons between a woman and her doctor. As to where that "personhood" point is defined, I would say when brain activity by an EEG can be detected and the current best medical view on viability outside the womb.

Zombrex · 08-05-2013 07:42PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But since the 'killing' of 1 year olds is not and has never been legal in Ireland

It should also be pointed out that right now in Ireland (and pretty much every other western country) it is perfectly legal to allow a child to die by not violating someone else's bodily integrity to save it.

The anti-abortion side go one and one about the rights of the baby and the right to life.

You don't though hear them going on much about introducing a law that would allow you to straight away after the baby is born, forcibly remove his/her kidney or other non-vital organ (or blood) in order to save someone else.

Nor do you hear them saying that laws should be introduced that would force them to submit to such violation.

It is all very easy to demonize pregnant women and strip them of their rights, after all the ones who have abortions are all sluts and fornicators. But heaven forbid (literally) applying such principles universally, or even to the new born babies that have themselves benefited.

robp · 08-05-2013 10:34PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed, I would be arguing for a referendum. But since the 'killing' of 1 year olds is not and has never been legal in Ireland nor would such a measure be passed if put to the electorate it's a moot point.

I am arguing for a referendum now too. But why arn't the pro-life lobbying for one?

What they are calling for it for government to deliberately and knowingly ignore the Constitution - which is a very different thing.

I suspect it is because they know in a referendum they would loose.

Actually many pro life groups have called for a referendum. In no way did past referenda create a clear unambiguous result. the 2002 vote saw not two positions but three and it failed on only 10,000 votes.

lazygal wrote: »

Can you link the to unbiased, peer reviewed medical data on abortion which reinforces the view that its never necessary to save the life of any pregnant woman?

The issue here is that there is no unbiased papers insisting that abortion is needed as a medical treatment. Don't underestimate the power of pro abortion thought police. In New Zealand the governmental abortion agency attempted to stop a peer reviewed study being published as it showed a negative impact of abortion on mental health. Link
The problem in this debate is that it is show politicised that science has been throw out the window.

lazygal wrote: »

I don't know of any unbiased, peer reviewed, definitive data on when 'life' begins. What about twins with the same genes, are they distinct life? Or frozen embryos, or blystocysts used in IVF treatment, but never implanted? Or the naturally occurring miscarriages? Should I be able to claim child benefit from the moment of conception? Should the foetus inside me be given legal reprensentation, based on the fairly clear cut current medical evidence?

Your are talking about the interface of fundamental biology and philosophy. It is a real and not a philosophical construct but writing a paper on it won't change a whole lot or matter to high impact research. Life is a process not a substance. I am sure you would agree an embryo is never not alive but unlike sperm it is new fundamental unit. nagirric argues that science disagrees at the precise point but actually it is very hard to argue that science shows life begins at birth.

J C · 08-05-2013 10:47PM

Zombrex wrote: »

It should also be pointed out that right now in Ireland (and pretty much every other western country) it is perfectly legal to allow a child to die by not violating someone else's bodily integrity to save it.

The anti-abortion side go one and one about the rights of the baby and the right to life.

You don't though hear them going on much about introducing a law that would allow you to straight away after the baby is born, forcibly remove his/her kidney or other non-vital organ (or blood) in order to save someone else.

Nor do you hear them saying that laws should be introduced that would force them to submit to such violation.

This stuff about organ transplants versus abortion is a complete 'red herring'. There is no moral or ethical requirement on anybody to provide spare body parts to somebody else ... indeed such a requirement would be open to serious abuse, with the 'strong' literally cannibalising the 'weak' - if it were ever to become law.
The surgical analogy with an abortion is a surgeon who starts an operation (like a woman getting pregnant) ... and then 'walks out' half way through the operation, thereby killing the patient.
Neither the surgeon nor the woman should start something that they're not prepared to see through ... barring an unforeseen extremis situation, such as the surgeon or the woman taking seriously ill themselves, for example.

Zombrex wrote: »

It is all very easy to demonize pregnant women and strip them of their rights, after all the ones who have abortions are all sluts and fornicators. But heaven forbid (literally) applying such principles universally, or even to the new born babies that have themselves benefited.

There are good reasons for (both men and women) engaging in sex within committed relationships ... but abortion isn't one of them.

Nobody in pro-life is demonising women ... and abortions are probably just as often performed on women in stable relationships as they are performed on women who get pregnant in less stable situations ... and women see their pregnancies through in both committed and non-committed relationship situations, as well. This is yet another 'red herring' introduced by you ... complete with deeply prejudicial and unwarranted descriptions that shouldn't ever be used about any women.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is no consensus in the medical community on when life begins. Genetics, Embryology and Neurology all give different answers (conception, 14 days and 24-26 weeks respectively). Therefore, like most ethical questions, science can inform the question but not answer the question. The question may in fact be unanswerable.

How very convenient!!! Of course the question of when life begins is scientifically answerable, for anybody who wants to bother.

It is a basic biological fact that all life begins at fertilisation ... and Human life is no different.
All this 'muddying of the waters' around the issue of when Human life begins, is a threadbare excuse to try and justify the indefensible taking of Human life in its most vulnerable stages.
No such lack of clarity exists around the reproductive material of endangered species, for example ... you are just as guilty of a crime for deliberately destroying birds eggs and frogspawn as you are for killing the adult animals ... and nobody is trying to create excuses as to what stage you can legally kill and when you can't, with these creatures!!

nagirrac · 09-05-2013 06:33AM

J C wrote: »

How very convenient!!! Of course the question of when life begins is scientifically answerable, for anybody who wants to bother. It is a basic biological fact that all life begins at fertilisation ... and Human life is no different..

No such lack of clarity exists around the reproductive material of endangered species, for example ... you are just as guilty of a crime for deliberately destroying birds eggs and frogspawn as you are for killing the adult animals

Yes, it is scientifically correct to say life in terms of a biological process begins at conception. However, if you read my post carefully and correctly you would have seen I was referring to how the medical profession deals with the ethical question of when human life begins. There is no consensus on this question within the medical community, because human life can be defined in cellular (fertilization), individual (gastrulation) or personhood (conscious awareness) terms. There is a whole field called bioethics that deals with this very difficult ethical question.

As for the ethical question regarding endangered species, surely you can see the distinction between trying to protect a species from going extinct and voluntary efforts to contain human population growth? It is after all the unethical growth in human population that is stripping the earth of resources, endangering our environment for future generations, and driving hundreds if not thousands of species into extinction annually.

J C · 09-05-2013 08:22PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Yes, it is scientifically correct to say life in terms of a biological process begins at conception. However, if you read my post carefully and correctly you would have seen I was referring to how the medical profession deals with the ethical question of when human life begins. There is no consensus on this question within the medical community, because human life can be defined in cellular (fertilization), individual (gastrulation) or personhood (conscious awareness) terms. There is a whole field called bioethics that deals with this very difficult ethical question.

There is nothing difficult about the question of when Human Life begins. It is patently obvous that Human Life begins at fertilisation ... and all this obfuscation is utilised to allow Human Life to be taken in its most vulnerable state, with legal impunity.

nagirrac wrote: »

As for the ethical question regarding endangered species, surely you can see the distinction between trying to protect a species from going extinct and voluntary efforts to contain human population growth?

There is nothing 'voluntary' about abortion as far as the unborn child is concerned.
... and there are many morally licit ways of controlling population growth other than deliberately killing tiny innocent Human Beings.
Anyway, the point I'm making is that it is patently clear when all life begins ... and there is something fundamentally sick about a society that legally protects unborn frogs in frogspawn ... but allows the wholesale slaughter of unborn Human children with legal immunity.

nagirrac wrote: »

It is after all the unethical growth in human population that is stripping the earth of resources, endangering our environment for future generations, and driving hundreds if not thousands of species into extinction annually.

... so is the solution to kill our youngest and most vulnerable children ?
... I think not.

PlainP · 09-05-2013 08:34PM

J C wrote: »

There is nothing difficult about the question of when Human Life begins. It is patently obvous that Human Life begins at fertilisation ... and all this obfuscation is only there to produce a smoke-screen behind which Human Life can be taken in its most vulnerable state with legal impunity.

There is nothing 'voluntary' about abortion as far as the unborn child is concerned.
... and there are many morally licit ways of controlling population growth other than deliberately killing tiny innocent Human Beings.
Anyway, the point I'm making is that it is patently clear when all life begins ... and there is something fundamentally sick about a society that values and legally protects unborn frogs in frogspawn ... but allows the wholesale slaughter of unborn Human children with legal immunity.

... so is the solution to kill our youngest and most vulnerable children ?
... I think not.

What other ways would these be??

Abortion debate thread

Comments