Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Cody Pomeray · 12-05-2013 02:04PM

drkpower wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the right to bodily integrity/autonomy should be absolute no matter how grave the consequences?

autonomy over how your body is used - yes. I don't believe in compelling an individual to offer up the use of their body. So naturally, like enforced medical testing, and enforced organ donation, I am opposed to enforced pregnancy. I think it's a pretty low threshold for justice actually.

LowKeyReturn · 12-05-2013 02:26PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

autonomy over how your body is used - yes. I don't believe in compelling an individual to offer up the use of their body. So naturally, like enforced medical testing, and enforced organ donation, I am opposed to enforced pregnancy. I think it's a pretty low threshold for justice actually.

I'm confused by this rather bizarre viewpoint. I assume as you've said enforced pregnancy you mean rape?

drkpower · 12-05-2013 02:28PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

autonomy over how your body is used - yes. I don't believe in compelling an individual to offer up the use of their body. So naturally, like enforced medical testing, and enforced organ donation, I am opposed to enforced pregnancy. I think it's a pretty low threshold for justice actually.

But would you accept that the right to bodily integrity and autonomy of person A can and should be constrained in certain circumstances where the rights of person B and C might be adversely affected by the free exercise of person A's rights?

Cody Pomeray · 12-05-2013 03:54PM

drkpower wrote: »

But would you accept that the right to bodily integrity and autonomy of person A can and should be constrained in certain circumstances where the rights of person B and C might be adversely affected by the free exercise of person A's rights?

No.

What rights of B and C might be adversely affected?

None of their rights have been infringed, because there is no legitimate right to making a facility of another individual's organs.
Babies have no right to make such demands, ante natally, or post natally.

The principle of individual bodily liberty is one that was hard fought for, and lies at the cornerstone of civilized, fraternal society.

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I'm confused by this rather bizarre viewpoint. I assume as you've said enforced pregnancy you mean rape?

No, by enforced pregnancy I mean a pregnancy that is forced upon an individual who does not wish to be pregnant; this individual is not necessarily a rape victim.

I love how you call bodily autonomy "a rather bizarre viewpoint".... what??

drkpower · 12-05-2013 04:01PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No.

What rights of B and C might be adversely affected?

None of their rights have been infringed, because there is no legitimate right to making a facility of another individual's organs.
Babies have no right to make such demands, ante natally, or post natally.

The principle of individual bodily liberty is one that was hard fought for, and lies at the cornerstone of civilized, fraternal society.

Do you advocate the incarceration of an individual where not to do so would jeopardises the rights of others?

LowKeyReturn · 12-05-2013 04:11PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I love how you call bodily autonomy "a rather bizarre viewpoint".... what??

There are many ways we regulate bodily autonomy for the greater good. Your view point on inducing premature birth is what I find rather bizarre.

The decision is made at the point of intercourse, not at conception. If you don't want to be pregnant there are many ways to avoid it. In a very small number of cases contraception can fail - in those cases the inconvenience to the mother is outweighed by the Constitutional right of the unborn child. Exceptions, should of course, be made in cases where the mother is a significant risk either mentally or physically.

I have yet to hear a convincing case for not simply having the child and putting it up for adoption.

Cody Pomeray · 12-05-2013 04:13PM

drkpower wrote: »

Do you advocate the incarceration of an individual where not to do so would jeopardises the rights of others?

Of course; I knew this misunderstanding would arise a few posts ago.

Which is why instead of referring to personal liberty, I stressed bodily liberty: freedom from others making utility of your body.

Cody Pomeray · 12-05-2013 04:15PM

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

The decision is made at the point of intercourse, not at conception. If you don't want to be pregnant there are many ways to avoid it.

Sure, but that individual can change their mind.

the inconvenience to the mother is outweighed by the Constitutional right of the unborn child.

Oh well I'm talking about what should be the case, I think we all know what the Constitution says.

And by the way, the constitution doesn't talk about a mother's inconvenience. Oh no, she could be left mentally and physically incapacitated in a nursing home if her pregnancy were to continue, and still not be entitled to an abortion, or freedom for her own body.

Cosmicfox · 12-05-2013 04:20PM

I just had a look at the WHO website and these are the stats for unsafe illegal abortions in recent years.

21.6 million women experience an unsafe abortion worldwide each year; 18.5 million of these occur in developing countries
47 000 women die from complications of unsafe abortion each year.
Deaths due to unsafe abortion remain close to 13% of all maternal deaths.

Estimated annual number of unsafe abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years, by subregions, 2008.

While people sit around and argue about the personhood of an unviable foetus with no developed brain, women die (and if they die, so does the foetus, and she is probably leaving behind other children too) or in Ireland usually, buy pills online and hope they don't get seized or travel. The only reason I can think of as to why Ireland is still debating over this is because we can just send women off to another country.

LowKeyReturn · 12-05-2013 04:22PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Sure, but that individual can change their mind.

Not in this decision. A life is created at conception. You may wish to debate this but as it stands this is majority view point. That viewpoint can be changed by referendum.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Oh well I'm talking about what should be the case, I think we all know what the Constitution says.

You sat that but then you say:

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

And by the way, the constitution doesn't talk about a mother's inconvenience. Oh no, she could be left mentally and physically incapacitated in a nursing home if her pregnancy were to continue, and still not be entitled to an abortion, or freedom for her own body.

I think you need to read what the Constitution says on the matter. There is an equal protection. Legislation is required to clarify the issue, where rational conversations are taking place.

All this said though we are getting off your original point, that, on demand an unborn child should be delivered regardless of the consequences to it.

drkpower · 12-05-2013 04:25PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Of course; I knew this misunderstanding would arise a few posts ago.

Which is why instead of referring to personal liberty, I stressed bodily liberty: freedom from others making utility of your body.

Does incarceration, and all that goes with it, not qualify as an infringement of bodily liberty?

In any case, what makes bodily liberty an absolute right, but personal liberty a right subject to considerable constraint?

LowKeyReturn · 12-05-2013 04:26PM

Cosmicfox wrote: »

I just had a look at the WHO website and these are the stats for unsafe illegal abortions in recent years.

21.6 million women experience an unsafe abortion worldwide each year; 18.5 million of these occur in developing countries
47 000 women die from complications of unsafe abortion each year.
Deaths due to unsafe abortion remain close to 13% of all maternal deaths.

Estimated annual number of unsafe abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years, by subregions, 2008.

While people sit around and argue about the personhood of an unviable foetus with no developed brain, women die (and if they die, so does the foetus, and she is probably leaving behind other children too) or in Ireland usually, buy pills online and hope they don't get seized or travel. The only reason I can think of as to why Ireland is still debating over this is because we can just send women off to another country.

I wasn't aware Ireland was considered a developing country. The bikini statistics you have quoted fail to account of; the wider availability of contraception, greater personal choice, the greater level of education and the ability to avail of a number of alternative solutions to abortion.

LowKeyReturn · 12-05-2013 04:29PM

drkpower wrote: »

Does incarceration, and all that goes with it, not qualify as an infringement of bodily liberty?

In any case, what makes bodily liberty an absolute right, but personal liberty a right subject to considerable constraint?

To be fair it does not. Bodily integrity is different to personal liberty. What differentiates them is western culture which holds the right not to be tortured even above the right to life.

It's incorrect to assume that bodily integrity is not subject to constraint - the error I believe Cody is making.

Bear in mind also that as a state, we do not infringe personal liberty, even when that person is travelling to seek an abortion.

Cosmicfox · 12-05-2013 04:34PM

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I wasn't aware Ireland was considered a developing country. The bikini statistics you have quoted fail to account of; the wider availability of contraception, greater personal choice, the greater level of education and the ability to avail of a number of alternative solutions to abortion.

I can't think of any other solution to an unwanted pregnancy except abortion. Adoption is a solution for parenting, not pregnancy.

Irish women still have abortions, 1000's every year despite contraception and education.

LowKeyReturn · 12-05-2013 04:43PM

Cosmicfox wrote: »

I can't think of any other solution to an unwanted pregnancy except abortion. Adoption is a solution for parenting, not pregnancy.

Irish women still have abortions, 1000's every year despite contraception and education.

The solution is prevention - don't get pregnant in the first place, beyond that a balancing test is applied.

The assertion you made was this is a life and death issue in Ireland. I think it's fair to say that's not the case, or is certainly very limited.

The abortions are due to the proximity of another state that allows abortion. We can't dictate what laws are passed in other countries. It also seems to be the will of the people that making out of state abortion is not a crime, neither is supplying information on the same. I may disagree with that point of view but I'm more than capable of having a rational and secular argument on point.

Cody Pomeray · 12-05-2013 04:54PM

drkpower wrote: »

Does incarceration, and all that goes with it, not qualify as an infringement of bodily liberty?

No of course not. Body liberty relates to the jurisdiction of the corpus, and the freedom of its owner to exercise his or her dominion over that jurisdiction.

Personal liberty relates, in this case, to the environment in which the body exists. That environment is not always at the discretion of an individual

In any case, what makes bodily liberty an absolute right, but personal liberty a right subject to considerable constraint?

I don't want to set my own moral compass on this question, I'm trying to make a logical deduction following on from what most people believe. Most people believe that it is inethical and unacceptable to compel an individual to relinquish or lend out his organs as a facility to a third party - even where that third party is a family relative.

If some man, Paddy, wants to donate a kidney to his son Tommy, who shares the same rare blood type as him, then good man Paddy. If not, Tommy can't issue demands about his rights being infringed.

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Not in this decision. A life is created at conception. You may wish to debate this but as it stands this is majority view point. That viewpoint can be changed by referendum.

You are completely wrong there.

In the words of Susan Denham, in Roche v Roche
http://www.codices.coe.int/NXT/gateway.dll/CODICES/full/eur/irl/eng/irl-2009-3-004

Article 40.3.3° was drafted in light of the special relationship that exists uniquely between a mother and the child she carries. It is when this relationship exists that Article 40.3.3° applies.

60. Further, the relationship is viewed through the prism of the right to life. It applies to a relationship where one life may be balanced against another. This relationship only exists, this balance only applies, where there is a physical connection between the mother and the unborn. This occurs only subsequent to implantation of the embryo. Thus the balancing of the right to life described in Article 40.3.3° may only take place after implantation. Therefore an unborn under Article 40.3.3° is established after an embryo is implanted.

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Originally Posted by Cody Pomeray
And by the way, the constitution doesn't talk about a mother's inconvenience. Oh no, she could be left mentally and physically incapacitated in a nursing home if her pregnancy were to continue, and still not be entitled to an abortion, or freedom for her own body.

I think you need to read what the Constitution says on the matter. There is an equal protection. Legislation is required to clarify the issue, where rational conversations are taking place.

I know what the Constitution says

It says that where there is an immediate danger that an individual will end up totally incapacitated, and a mental wreck, living in a nursing home as a result of carrying a baby to term, that individual has no right to a termination.

So this is more than just about "inconvenience"

LowKeyReturn · 12-05-2013 05:05PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You are completely wrong there.

In the words of Susan Denham, in Roche v Roche
http://www.codices.coe.int/NXT/gateway.dll/CODICES/full/eur/irl/eng/irl-2009-3-004

See you make relevant corrections - such as implantation rather than conception then you make comments like the one below. On that correction though I'm not sure how that changed anything as aside from IVF or the use of the 'pill' it has no bearing on the argument.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I know what the Constitution says

It says that where there is an immediate danger that an individual will end up totally incapacitated, and a mental wreck, living in a nursing home as a result of carrying a baby to term, that individual has no right to a termination.

So this is more than just about "inconvenience"

It really doesn't say that - and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that. I'm also sure you're aware that legislation can resolve the issue and does not require abortion on demand.

drkpower · 12-05-2013 05:10PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No of course not. Body liberty relates to the jurisdiction of the corpus, and the freedom of its owner to exercise his or her dominion over that jurisdiction.

Personal liberty relates, in this case, to the environment in which the body exists. That environment is not always at the discretion of an individual

I don't want to set my own moral compass on this question, I'm trying to make a logical deduction following on from what most people believe. Most people believe that it is inethical and unacceptable to compel an individual to relinquish or lend out his organs as a facility to a third party - even where that third party is a family relative.

If some man, Paddy, wants to donate a kidney to his son Tommy, who shares the same rare blood type as him, then good man Paddy. If not, Tommy can't issue demands about his rights being infringed.

Re incarceration: it doesn't only involve environment. Certain forms of incarceration involve forcible searches and similar circumstances which are certainly considered within the rubric of bodily integrity. Other forms of incarceration involve forced medical treatment, also involving an interference with bodily integrity.

Re: bodily integrity vs personal liberty/autonomy: You haven't explained why one should be absolute, and why the other can be subject to significant curtailment. You really need to distinguish the two for your view to stand up to logical scrutiny.

Finally, Roche v Roche said nothing about when life starts; it clarified the meaning of the unborn. These are different concepts.

Cody Pomeray · 12-05-2013 05:10PM

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

It really doesn't say that - and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that.

Oh but it does. The Protection of Life in Maternity Bill and the Irish Constitution pay not attention to the health damage that delivering a baby might do to a woman's physical and mental health, save if it threatens to land her in a coffin.

Anything else - including permanent medical and physical incapacity - is fair game in the eyes of the law.

So your point about a pregnancy being 'inconvenient' is really simplistic, and totally misplaced.

LowKeyReturn · 12-05-2013 05:11PM

I'd actually forgotten this was taking place in after hours!

Cody Pomeray · 12-05-2013 05:13PM

drkpower wrote: »

Re incarceration: it doesn't only involve environment. Certain forms of incarceration involve forcible searches and similar circumstances which are certainly considered within the rubric of bodily integrity.

Right, and i have not been referring to bodily integrity - that was your term.

I'm defining the transgression of a person's bodily liberty as the unjust employment of bodily organs, or of the whole body, so as to derive a utility for a third party, without the individual's consent.

LowKeyReturn · 12-05-2013 05:16PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Oh but it does. The Protection of Life in Maternity Bill and the Irish Constitution pay not attention to the health damage that delivering a baby might do to a woman's physical and mental health, save if it threatens to land her in a coffin.

Anything else - including permanent medical and physical incapacity - is fair game in the eyes of the law.

So your point about a pregnancy being 'inconvenient' is really simplistic, and totally misplaced.

The bill is exactly that - a Bill and may need to be brought into line with making a more equal balance. The Constitution allows for equal protection. You will note I made my personal view clear further up. Yours still hasn't been defended. You seem to be suggesting a system that not even the most pro-choice systems would support.

As for the situation you describe, you are talking about a very small number of cases. While you may think my view is misplaced, employing scaremongering is equally as misplaced.

LowKeyReturn · 12-05-2013 05:17PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Right, and i have not been referring to bodily integrity - that was your term.

I'm defining the transgression of a person's bodily liberty as the unjust employment of bodily organs, or of the whole body, so as to derive a utility for a third party, without the individual's consent.

Actually it was mine - and you are now splitting hairs.

However if we refer to the OP I think we have disproved it.

Cody Pomeray · 12-05-2013 05:23PM

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

The bill is exactly that - a Bill and may need to be brought into line with making a more equal balance. The Constitution allows for equal protection.

What's the fact that it's a bill got to do with anything?

The Supreme Court Case of X v The Attorney General is irreversible.

The Oireachtas cannot amend the bill to protect the health of the mother in the way I have described... they can never do that under the Constitution. The Constitution allows for a woman to decline into mental and physical incapacity, so long as she delivers a baby. This is to be the case even if she is to have a baby which only lives for a matter of hours.

This is why the Constitution must be changed.

drkpower · 12-05-2013 05:29PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Right, and i have not been referring to bodily integrity - that was your term.

I'm defining the transgression of a person's bodily liberty as the unjust employment of bodily organs, or of the whole body, so as to derive a utility for a third party, without the individual's consent.

You seem to be further and further narrowing the specific right you are talking about. And you have yet to distinguish the right you speak of (which you contend is absolute) from other fundamental rights that you consider not to be absolute.

Cody Pomeray · 12-05-2013 05:36PM

drkpower wrote: »

You seem to be further and further narrowing the specific right you are talking about. And you have yet to distinguish the right you speak of (which you contend is absolute) from other fundamental rights that you consider not to be absolute.

I told you, sermonizing my moral oiutlook is not going to be very useful, so I'm making a logical deduction instead.

That deduction says : we don't find it acceptable to force parents to legally commit their bodies to saving their offspring's lives when suitable donors cannot be found.

Perhaps if we did find that morally acceptable, there would be a logical basis for making demands on bodily liberty ante-natally.

drkpower · 12-05-2013 05:44PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I told you, sermonizing my moral oiutlook is not going to be very useful, so I'm making a logical deduction instead.

That deduction says : we don't find it acceptable to force parents to legally commit their bodies to saving their offspring's lives when suitable donors cannot be found.

Perhaps if we did find that morally acceptable, there would be a logical basis for making demands on bodily liberty ante-natally.

I appreciate that and the logical deduction you have made does make sense. But the issue of rights, particularly how you balance them against the rights of others is quite complicated. It seems that you have made one logical ðeduction, and stopped there because it fits in with you overall view on the issue.

But I think you need to go further and consider why the specific right you have chosen to focus on (be that bodily integrity,or liberty, or autonomy) is 100% absolute, while almost every other right we have is not absolute. Once you have done that, I think you will understand your own views and position on the issue a whole lot better.

Cody Pomeray · 12-05-2013 06:15PM

drkpower wrote: »

I appreciate that and the logical deduction you have made does make sense. But the issue of rights, particularly how you balance them against the rights of others is quite complicated. It seems that you have made one logical ðeduction, and stopped there because it fits in with you overall view on the issue.

Not so, I even give rebuttals to my own argument.

For example, one could argue that post natally, there is always the possibility that a donor will show up. No blood type is so rare as to only allow for a parental organ donation.
Although the baby may die, the possibility that a voluntary, compatible donor will be found is enough to preclude any rational intervention and intrusion into the body of the parent.

With a non viable foetus, no such possibility can ever exist. No donor will ever be found. Only the mother can save the child.

It is in this sense that the comparison of post natal babies to ante natal babies is an inexact exercise.

I would still maintain that this anomaly is too minor to weigh against the parent's right to bodily liberty, but I assure you I'm not just trying to pick and limit arguments so as they suit my moral outlook. Well, maybe a bit, but I'm trying not to.

Aseth · 12-05-2013 06:15PM

A democratic country should assure that it accommodates the views of all it's citizens not only the ones representing a certain (religious) viewpoint and a majority.
Every woman should have a right to choose whether she wants to be pregnant or not. Even if some of us might find it morally wrong to terminate the pregnancy or condemn using abortion instead of contraception(as I do) it's as wrong to force our viewpoints on others.
I also find it hypocritical to forbid abortion hoping to achieve - what is it exactly you're trying to achieve here anyway? - hoping it will probably stop women from having it when everyone's fully aware that a woman will go to UK or use other means to get rid of the fetus. The only thing you achieve is having piece of mind it's not being done in Ireland(and are you sure it's not cause in Poland it is a law commonly broken) and endangering lives of women by having them take tablets bought on the internet and use them without medical supervision. Should I also add that to me getting pregnant in Ireland potentially endangers my life(see the recent case of that poor Indian woman - sorry forgot the name) even though I'm not an Irish citizen and am not a roman catholic? Would I see my rights respected in case my pregnancy goes wrong or should I spend the whole 9 months in UK - just in case?
Maybe putting this in that way is a bit extreme but when you consider your life being at risk it doesn't sound so anymore... /rant over

EDIT: Forgot to add - a right to abortion means just that - a right. It doesn't mean it will be forced on every pregnant woman whether she wants to use it or not.

drkpower · 12-05-2013 06:22PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Not so, I even give rebuttals to my own argument.

For example, one could argue that post natally, there is always the possibility that a donor will show up. No blood type is so rare as to only allow for a parental organ donation.
Although the baby may die, the possibility that a voluntary, compatible donor will be found is enough to preclude any rational intervention and intrusion into the body of the parent.

With a non viable foetus, no such possibility can ever exist. No donor will ever be found. Only the mother can save the child.

It is in this sense that the comparison of post natal babies to ante natal babies is an inexact exercise.

I would still maintain that this anomaly is too minor to weigh against the parent's right to bodily liberty, but I assure you I'm not just trying to pick and limit arguments so as they suit my moral outlook. Well, maybe a bit, but I'm trying not to.

But the one thing you haven't done yet is considered why the right you believe is absolute is distinguishable from other rights that are not absolute. Until you have done that it seems that any conclusions you have drawn are premature.

Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Comments