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…4344464849…59

Comments

  • #1352
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    FISMA wrote: »
    The question posed Bannasidhe was one of legality, not of opinion, or otherwise.

    What if a man is not legally recognised as the father?
    Hard to get a DNA test off someone that can't be found.

    I know many Irishmen who have children in the UK. Children they walked away from and as they are no longer living in the UK the courts there cannot compel them to do anything.

    A friend of mine is Polish married to an Irishwomen - they have one child. She has two from a previous relationship who live with them. He also has three children from a previous marriage.

    Story now is he has adopted her two children as there was no legally recognised father (their father emigrated to Canada) but has had no contact with his own children at all and pays no maintenance for 5 years because 'it's too hard'. He walked away and there is nothing the law can do about it unless his ex wife takes him to court in Ireland.

    Family Law is a civil matter which means the onus is on the individual to pursue a case plus enforcement is hit and miss at best. It cannot be enforced against someone who lives outside the jurisdiction and it's damn hard to sue someone who cannot be found.

    The State will only pursue a father if the mother is claiming SW - not all single mother claim SW and in those cases the State has zero interest in becoming involved. So yes, men can walk away and unless the mother a) knows where they live and b) has the wherewithal to take them to court they do escape facing legal repercussions.

    This ability to walk away in the case of unmarried father's is enshrined in Irish law in the form of the Guardianship of Children Act 1964 which specifies that the mother and the mother alone is the legal guardian.
    Now this piece of legislation is deeply unfair and forces unmarried father's who do wish to be legally recognised to take the mother to court and have guardianship/access/custody sorted out but that was an unintended consequence of the original legislation which did give men that legal opt out and that legislation is still in force.

    The up shot of this is that it must be proven that a man who is not married to the mother of a child is the father before the civil courts and then and only then (should it be possible to make the case) will the courts make a ruling and if it is proven but he fails to abide by court rulings the onus in on the mother to take him back to court if she can find him.


  • #1353
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What if a man is not legally recognised as the father?
    Hard to get a DNA test off someone that can't be found.

    I know many Irishmen who have children in the UK. Children they walked away from and as they are no longer living in the UK the courts there cannot compel them to do anything.

    A friend of mine is Polish married to an Irishwomen - they have one child. She has two from a previous relationship who live with them. He also has three children from a previous marriage.

    Story now is he has adopted her two children as there was no legally recognised father (their father emigrated to Canada) but has had no contact with his own children at all and pays no maintenance for 5 years because 'it's too hard'. He walked away and there is nothing the law can do about it unless his ex wife takes him to court in Ireland.

    Family Law is a civil matter which means the onus is on the individual to pursue a case plus enforcement is hit and miss at best. It cannot be enforced against someone who lives outside the jurisdiction and it's damn hard to sue someone who cannot be found.

    The State will only pursue a father if the mother is claiming SW - not all single mother claim SW and in those cases the State has zero interest in becoming involved. So yes, men can walk away and unless the mother a) knows where they live and b) has the wherewithal to take them to court they do escape facing legal repercussions.

    This ability to walk away in the case of unmarried father's is enshrined in Irish law in the form of the Guardianship of Children Act 1964 which specifies that the mother and the mother alone is the legal guardian.
    Now this piece of legislation is deeply unfair and forces unmarried father's who do wish to be legally recognised to take the mother to court and have guardianship/access/custody sorted out but that was an unintended consequence of the original legislation which did give men that legal opt out and that legislation is still in force.

    The up shot of this is that it must be proven that a man who is not married to the mother of a child is the father before the civil courts and then and only then (should it be possible to make the case) will the courts make a ruling and if it is proven but he fails to abide by court rulings the onus in on the mother to take him back to court if she can find him.
    Some men do neglect their responsibilities in relation to children that they father ... others 'encourage' women they have impregnated to have an abortion.
    Yes, some men behave irresponsibly and abismally towards women ... and the law may need to be tightened to not let them continue to get away with this.
    ... but none of this adds anything to the case for abortion.


  • #1354
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    J C wrote: »
    Some men do neglect their responsibilities in relation to children that they father ... others 'encourage' women they have impregnated to have an abortion.
    Yes, some men behave irresponsible and abismally towards women ... and the law may need to be tightened to not let them continue to get away with this.
    ... but none of this adds anything to the case for abortion.

    I am not the one who introduced the topic - I am simply responding to a poster who said that men cannot walk away when the fact is they can and do and there is little to nothing the State will do about it meaning that men can shrug off any responsibility for the children they father.

    My 79 year old mother is of the opinion that men should butt out of the abortion debate as it isn't their bodies and they can and do walk away while women are left holding the baby.
    I don't go that far, but I will challenge comments that men are forced to face legal repercussions by pointing out that this is fairly meaningless considering the legal loopholes required and the failure/inability of the State enforce any rulings.


  • #1355
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    ... I will challenge comments that men are forced to face legal repercussions by pointing out that this is fairly meaningless considering the legal loopholes required and the failure/inability of the State enforce any rulings.
    I agree that some men are a serious part of the problem of both irresponsible sexual activity and abortion.
    The English legal system seems to be quite good at making men face up to their financial responsibilities (even if not their personal ones) in relation to their children. The French give an absolute inheritance right to all children (conceived within and without marriage) over all property belonging to either parent.
    However, this probably makes some men have an even greater interest in women, who are pregnant by them, going for an abortion ... as this also terminates any future responsibity by them to their child.


  • #1356
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I am simply responding to a poster who said that men cannot walk away when the fact is they can and do and there is little to nothing the State will do about it meaning that men can shrug off any responsibility for the children they father.

    Please do not misquote or misinterpret my original post, #1293, which was clearly directed towards the law, American Law at that, and introduced one of the many dilemma that we colloquially refer to as the slippery slope.

    I purposely went out of my way to ensure the post dealt with legalities and not hypotheticals.

    Here is the post.
    FISMA wrote: »
    Should a man that does not want to be a father be able to legally walk away from all obligations, no questions asked? Are men in Ireland allowed to walk away from child support if they chose?

    Why should a man be forced to be a father if he does not want to be?

    These are some questions the States are dealing with as we speak.

    In the States, we have an equal protection clause. You cannot apply the law differently based on sex.

    If I failed to communicate that clearly, I tried again in post #1301.
    FISMA wrote: »
    In the States, the law allows several instances for a woman to: (a) not become a mother or (b) cease being a mother. This choice is not legally afforded to men.

    I am unsure as to your intent, but will offer you the benefit of the doubt and offer a third a final attempt to explain my point.

    Fundamentally, in Roe Vs Wade, the state told a female that because she was pregnant, she had to become a mother.

    She disagreed. She said she could have an abortion.

    The State legally allows a woman who becomes pregnant to not become a mother. She may have an abortion, abandon the child, or put the child up for adoption.

    Colloquially, in the States, a man cannot legally force a woman to be a mother. However, a woman can legally force a man to be the father.

    Again legally.

    A man, however, who "father's" a child cannot, of his own free will, cannot legally walk away from his responsibilities.

    Again, we are talking legally.

    Now I put the question to you Bannasidhe: if a man is known to be the father of a child, should he be allowed to legally walk away from all rights and responsibilities of his own free will, in any/all circumstances?


  • Advertisement
  • #1357
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    FISMA wrote: »
    Please do not misquote or misinterpret my original post, #1293, which was clearly directed towards the law, American Law at that, and introduced one of the many dilemma that we colloquially refer to as the slippery slope.

    I purposely went out of my way to ensure the post dealt with legalities and not hypotheticals.

    Here is the post.



    If I failed to communicate that clearly, I tried again in post #1301.



    I am unsure as to your intent, but will offer you the benefit of the doubt and offer a third a final attempt to explain my point.

    Fundamentally, in Roe Vs Wade, the state told a female that because she was pregnant, she had to become a mother.

    She disagreed. She said she could have an abortion.

    The State legally allows a woman who becomes pregnant to not become a mother. She may have an abortion, abandon the child, or put the child up for adoption.

    Colloquially, in the States, a man cannot legally force a woman to be a mother. However, a woman can legally force a man to be the father.

    Again legally.

    A man, however, who "father's" a child cannot, of his own free will, cannot legally walk away from his responsibilities.

    Again, we are talking legally.

    Now I put the question to you Bannasidhe: if a man is known to be the father of a child, should he be allowed to legally walk away from all rights and responsibilities of his own free will, in any/all circumstances?

    What exactly does American Law have to do with Ireland?

    I'm afraid I stopped reading there. I am not living in the US. US law does not impact on the lives of Irish women. If I wished to discuss the situation as it pertains in certain US states I would be posting on a US based website.


  • #1358
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    28064212 wrote: »
    If the unborn is human then what are we to make of the 50 million miscarriages in the US alone since the 70's? If there were 1 million infants dying in the US every year, there would be outrage. Yet there are that many foetuses dying, and it's rare to hear a word about it from the "pro-life" groups

    I'm not sure how to address that point. On one hand I agree that there isn't the same mass uproar as there would if it transpired that we routinely severed the spines of newborns (and I wonder will the Gosnell trial will turn out to be just one amongst many) and that is curious. I ask myself if there was a clinic dedicated to infanticide around the the corner what would I do? And would it be the same as if it was an abortion clinic? And if not why not?

    But then you go on to make a comment about pro-life groups. They are campaigning vigorously against abortion - a few even tot he point of violence - so I'm wondering why you haven't heard of them. They are out there making plenty of noise. Why do you think that you aren't hearing them?

    It looks to me that you are suggesting that they really don't believe what they are saying. But even if I grant you that not one person in the pro-life movement actually believed what they were saying their arguments would still have to be tackled by themselves. If an argument can be said to offer compelling reasons to believe that humanness and personhood are qualities of both the born and unborn then it really doesn't matter who makes the argument. I suggest that people like Scott Klusendorf offer such arguments.


  • #1359
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    My 79 year old mother is of the opinion that men should butt out of the abortion debate as it isn't their bodies and they can and do walk away while women are left holding the baby.

    That's a very odd belief. Give that men will be involved in any legislation regarding abortion I wonder about their input?


  • #1360
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,079 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'm not sure how to address that point. On one hand I agree that there isn't the same mass uproar as there would if it transpired that we routinely severed the spines of newborns (and I wonder will the Gosnell trial will turn out to be just one amongst many) and that is curious. I ask myself if there was a clinic dedicated to infanticide around the the corner what would I do? And would it be the same as if it was an abortion clinic? And if not why not?

    But then you go on to make a comment about pro-life groups. They are campaigning vigorously against abortion - a few even tot he point of violence - so I'm wondering why you haven't heard of them. They are out there making plenty of noise. Why do you think that you aren't hearing them?

    It looks to me that you are suggesting that they really don't believe what they are saying. But even if I grant you that not one person in the pro-life movement actually believed what they were saying their arguments would still have to be tackled by themselves. If an argument can be said to offer compelling reasons to believe that humanness and personhood are qualities of both the born and unborn then it really doesn't matter who makes the argument. I suggest that people like Scott Klusendorf offer such arguments.
    You totally missed the entire point. I did not mention abortion, only miscarriages. If foetuses are the same as infants, than miscarriages are a greater killer than cancer and heart disease. Yet pro-life groups are making no attempt to highlight this huge killer

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #1361
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    That's a very odd belief. Give that men will be involved in any legislation regarding abortion I wonder about their input?

    Not really odd at all. It is quite a common belief which goes that as men are not the ones who will have to face the physical consequences they should not be allowed to decide or debate. This belief is usually dismissed as an extreme feminist view yet is is very much the one held by my 79 year old Irish Catholic mammy. She doesn't trust men to decide for women.


  • Advertisement
  • #1362
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    28064212 wrote: »
    You totally missed the entire point. I did not mention abortion, only miscarriages. If foetuses are the same as infants, than miscarriages are a greater killer than cancer and heart disease. Yet pro-life groups are making no attempt to highlight this huge killer

    It appears that I did. Just hopping into the debate after a few days off so apologies.

    The obvious rebuttal is that you are making a category error. Pro-life groups are talking about the unlawful killing of an innocent human by means of an intentional act. Cancer and heart-disease are not the same as a premeditated decision to end the life of another human. A disease that kills someone is not the same as a decision to kill. Do you apply the same arguments to other support goups? For example, cancer kills more men in Ireland than than suicide. Should anti-suicide charities too be criticised for not focusing on the more prevalent danger caused by cancer?

    Again, despite not understanding your argument my point still applies. If the pro life side is making compelling arguments (and people can check out the previous link to see an excellent debate) it really doesn't matter what they do or do not do. The arguments stand or fall by themselves.


  • #1363
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,079 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    It appears that I did. Just hopping into the debate after a few days off so apologies.

    The obvious rebuttal is that you are making a category error. Pro-life groups are talking about the unlawful killing of an innocent human by means of an intentional act. Cancer and heart-disease are not the same as a premeditated decision to end the life of another human. A disease that kills someone is not the same as a decision to kill. Do you apply the same arguments to other support goups? For example, cancer kills more men in Ireland than than suicide. Should anti-suicide charities too be criticised for not focusing on the more prevalent danger caused by cancer?

    Again, despite not understanding your argument my point still applies. If the pro life side is making compelling arguments (and people can check out the previous link to see an excellent debate) it really doesn't matter what they do or do not do. The arguments stand or fall by themselves.
    Anti-suicide charities do not proclaim themselves to be the protector of all men. If pro-life groups want to make statements on infants being equivalent to foetuses, they should act like they believe it. Otherwise they're not "pro-life", they're just anti-abortion, and their arguments should be viewed in that light

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #1364
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    It appears that I did. Just hopping into the debate after a few days off so apologies.

    The obvious rebuttal is that you are making a category error. Pro-life groups are talking about the unlawful killing of an innocent human by means of an intentional act. Cancer and heart-disease are not the same as a premeditated decision to end the life of another human. A disease that kills someone is not the same as a decision to kill. Do you apply the same arguments to other support goups? For example, cancer kills more men in Ireland than than suicide. Should anti-suicide charities too be criticised for not focusing on the more prevalent danger caused by cancer?

    Again, despite not understanding your argument my point still applies. If the pro life side is making compelling arguments (and people can check out the previous link to see an excellent debate) it really doesn't matter what they do or do not do. The arguments stand or fall by themselves.

    With respect Fanny, I think you're still missing the point.

    This is nothing to do with intentional killing. It's a recognition that 400 million embryos will die from natural causes every year. By contrast cancer will kill over 7 million people. We've known about the stats from spontaneous abortions for decades now but we've done nothing - absolutely nothing to prevent the death of such a large amount. We pour billions of euro into saving people from dying from cancer but here, where even if we only saved 10% of the embryos we'd have saved more lives than all other illness based research combined, we spend absolutely nothing. If a group is to call itself pro-life and firmly believes the embryos, foetus, baby and adult human are all equivalent then why isn't it doing anything to save the biggest killer of human beings? Unless of course they don't actually believe the embryo's life is equal to that of a born human.

    In fact, if you look at it this way more embryos will experience death in two weeks than human will walk the planet. To adopt the fatalistic attitude of "well the deaths are natural" is mind boggling. Practically every illness known to us is natural and yet we strive to prevent them from killing people.


  • #1365
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Topical. Would love to hear the 'christian' take on this so as I can gauge how evangelical (in an american kinda way) you are getting....

    "Obsenshain, however, would treat many women as if they were criminal suspects at the moment they are confronted with a deep personal tragedy — and imprison them if they would rather deal with that tragedy privately with their family than share the vulnerable moment after a miscarriage with law enforcement."

    http://www.alternet.org/virginia-gop-nominee-attorney-general-would-force-women-report-their-miscarriages-police-or-face-1

    Gotta love the anti-women movement.....:mad:


  • #1366
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Jernal wrote: »
    In fact, if you look at it this way more embryos will experience death in two weeks than human will walk the planet. To adopt the fatalistic attitude of "well the deaths are natural" is mind boggling. Practically every illness known to us is natural and yet we strive to prevent them from killing people.
    Firstly I think your figures for embryonic deaths are spurious ... true spontaneous miscarriage is considerably less than live births, probably by an order of magnitude.
    Secondly, the medical profession does go to great lengths to prevent/stop spontaneous miscarriage ... but like other causes of death and disease, many times they are helpless to prevent it.
    Thirdly, spontaneous / accidental death occurs at all stages of life ... but society only criminally sanctions deaths deliberately caused by neglect or active killing. Procured abortion is deliberate killing ... and, like all deliberate killing, it can only be morally justified in very limited circumstances in situations of extremis and with no viable alternative.


  • #1367
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    The obvious rebuttal is that you are making a category error. Pro-life groups are talking about the unlawful killing of an innocent human by means of an intentional act. Cancer and heart-disease are not the same as a premeditated decision to end the life of another human. A disease that kills someone is not the same as a decision to kill.
    That's exactly what 28064212 is doing ... making a category error ... and introducing a 'red herring'.
    You are totally correct on this one.


  • #1368
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I am not living in the US. US law does not impact on the lives of Irish women. If I wished to discuss the situation as it pertains in certain US states I would be posting on a US based website.

    Consider Irish law then and the situation solely with respect Irish parties (father, mother, and child) based in the Republic of Ireland.

    Should a man who is the father of a child be allowed to legally walk away from rights, responsibilities, liabilities, obligations, et al, just because he decides to, despite the mother's objections?


  • #1369
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    FISMA wrote: »
    Zombrex,
    Should a man be legally allowed to walk away from all custodial rights and responsibilities for a child that he has fathered?

    Neither parent should be allowed to "walk away" from their parental rights except through the process of adoption.

    And you haven't answered my question.


  • #1370
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    The obvious rebuttal is that you are making a category error. Pro-life groups are talking about the unlawful killing of an innocent human by means of an intentional act. Cancer and heart-disease are not the same as a premeditated decision to end the life of another human. A disease that kills someone is not the same as a decision to kill. Do you apply the same arguments to other support goups? For example, cancer kills more men in Ireland than than suicide. Should anti-suicide charities too be criticised for not focusing on the more prevalent danger caused by cancer?

    The point is that the anti-abortion groups don't actually care about these babies. If they die of "natural" causes few bat an eyelid. The anti-abortion movement like to talk about the "holocaust" of aborted babies, but seem oblivious to the natural dead of hundreds of millions of fetuses each year. Where are the campaigns for medical research to stop this. Where are the marches and donations and outrage and demands?

    The motivation for opposing abortion is not the well being of the fetus. That is just a smoke screen. If the fetus dies of an event unrelated to the woman's actions no one cares.

    The issue is clearly not the well being of the foetus, it is the distaste that some have for the idea that a woman will have sex and then not "face the consequences". This makes some very uncomfortable.

    Like most things when it comes to Christianity, this is really all about controlling "slutty" women.


  • #1371
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    You seem to specialise in negative generalisations, don't you? But you are correct, of course, all of this is about Christianity needing to oppress slutty women. Apparently this even applies to the non-religious who oppose elective abortion. And that's why you don't have to deal with the philosophical or scientific arguments made by the pro-life side, you just second guess the true motives at play.


  • Advertisement
  • #1372
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    You seem to specialise in negative generalisations, don't you? But you are correct, of course, all of this is about Christianity needing to oppress slutty women. Apparently this even applies to the non-religious who oppose elective abortion. And that's why you don't have to deal with the philosophical or scientific arguments made by the pro-life side, you just second guess the true motives at play.

    What debate have you been having? :rolleyes:

    A woman has the right to control what happens to her own body even if choosing to refuse to give consent results in the death of another person. And it doesn't matter all that much for embryos and fetuses earlier than about 24-28 weeks because they are just a clump of cells anyway.

    The "rebuttal" to both these arguments is to ignore them and to simply try pulling on heart strings, oh think of these poor children that these irresponsible women want to murder! How cruel! How selfish!

    Not only have arguments failed to materialize to deal with the two points above, but even the heart string arguments have no weight behind them because the anti-abortion side don't even believe that these clumps of cells have the emotional value of a child.


  • #1373
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Jernal wrote: »
    With respect Fanny, I think you're still missing the point.

    This is nothing to do with intentional killing. It's a recognition that 400 million embryos will die from natural causes every year. By contrast cancer will kill over 7 million people. We've known about the stats from spontaneous abortions for decades now but we've done nothing - absolutely nothing to prevent the death of such a large amount. We pour billions of euro into saving people from dying from cancer but here, where even if we only saved 10% of the embryos we'd have saved more lives than all other illness based research combined, we spend absolutely nothing. If a group is to call itself pro-life and firmly believes the embryos, foetus, baby and adult human are all equivalent then why isn't it doing anything to save the biggest killer of human beings? Unless of course they don't actually believe the embryo's life is equal to that of a born human.

    In fact, if you look at it this way more embryos will experience death in two weeks than human will walk the planet. To adopt the fatalistic attitude of "well the deaths are natural" is mind boggling. Practically every illness known to us is natural and yet we strive to prevent them from killing people.

    I do get the point, Jernal. And it's a point well made. However, most of the abortion opposition that I've encountered is predicated upon the idea that elective abortion is the unjust killing of humans. Even if we somehow ended all the natural deaths of the unborn the world over we are still left with the problem of elective abortion. Hence the continued opposition to abortion.


    You may as well apply the same criticism to anti-war protesters for all the sense that it makes - at least considering the focus of their protest.


    "Why are you anti-war people not putting your energy into fighting the natural diseases that prematurely ends the life of many more people than war? If you really wanted to end suffering then this is where you should start!"


    In this regard, I suggest that you are also missing the focus of our argument.


  • #1374
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,623 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I do get the point, Jernal. And it's a point well made. However, most of the abortion opposition that I've encountered is predicated upon the idea that elective abortion is the unjust killing of humans. Even if we somehow ended all the natural deaths of the unborn the world over we are still left with the problem of elective abortion. Hence the continued opposition to abortion.


    You may as well apply the same criticism to anti-war protesters for all the sense that it makes - at least considering the focus of their protest.


    "Why are you anti-war people not putting your energy into fighting the natural diseases that prematurely ends the life of many more people than war? If you really wanted to end suffering then this is where you should start!"


    In this regard, I suggest that you are also missing the focus of our argument.

    The point being made though is simply in attempt to show an underlying flaw in the logic of those opposed to abortion. Not an appeal to redistribute efforts.

    The question is simply being asked. Why is there literally no effort made in the area from people as a whole(pro-choicers especially considering how they hold fetuses as equal to grown humans)?
    Not just a small amount of effort. But virtually none?
    Could you imagine the chaos if 400 million people, from toddlers to the elderly simply fell over dead every year? It would undoubtedly be regarded as the largest crisis to beset the human race since the Toba catastrophe.

    Why, when this happens to fetuses, is it not regarded so?


  • #1375
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    A woman has the right to control what happens to her own body even if choosing to refuse to give consent results in the death of another person. And it doesn't matter all that much for embryos and fetuses earlier than about 24-28 weeks because they are just a clump of cells anyway.

    Are you arguing that this "right to refuse to give consent" extends up to birth? I think many people on the pro-choice side would have a serious problem with this, except in cases of medical emergency. I am not aware of any country where abortion on request is available after fetal viability is established, although admittedly the point of fetal viability varies by country, and indeed varies by state in the US (24 weeks is most common, although it is now 20 weeks in 8 states).

    The survival rates for premature births are >50% at 24 weeks and >90% at 26 weeks and above, so to refer to these as "clumps of cells" just gives ammunition to the pro-life argument, not to speak of a woeful ignorance of human biological development.

    In my opinion there is no justification for ending the life of a viable fetus, except in the case where continuing with the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the mother's health and/or life. As medical technology advances and our knowledge of how much cognitive function is present during fetal development, I would suggest legal restrictions on abortion will eventually be set in most countries at 20 - 22 weeks. This aspect of the discussion has nothing to do with religion in my view, as you will not find many people in a modern civilized society that refer to fully formed, viable mini humans as clumps of cells, or arguing that they do not have a right to life.


  • #1376
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Are you arguing that this "right to refuse to give consent" extends up to birth? I think many people on the pro-choice side would have a serious problem with this, except in cases of medical emergency. I am not aware of any country where abortion on request is available after fetal viability is established, although admittedly the point of fetal viability varies by country, and indeed varies by state in the US (24 weeks is most common, although it is now 20 weeks in 8 states).

    The survival rates for premature births are >50% at 24 weeks and >90% at 26 weeks and above, so to refer to these as "clumps of cells" just gives ammunition to the pro-life argument, not to speak of a woeful ignorance of human biological development.

    In my opinion there is no justification for ending the life of a viable fetus, except in the case where continuing with the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the mother's health and/or life. As medical technology advances and our knowledge of how much cognitive function is present during fetal development, I would suggest legal restrictions on abortion will eventually be set in most countries at 20 - 22 weeks. This aspect of the discussion has nothing to do with religion in my view, as you will not find many people in a modern civilized society that refer to fully formed, viable mini humans as clumps of cells, or arguing that they do not have a right to life.

    "Abortion" of a viable foetus is (or should be) simply a birth. If the foetus will survive the procedure and survive outside the mother why would you kill it?


  • #1377
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    "Abortion" of a viable foetus is (or should be) simply a birth. If the foetus will survive the procedure and survive outside the mother why would you kill it?

    Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the "removal or expulsion of a foetus from the uterus". It can occur naturally or be induced, the most common usage of the word abortion means induced. If we stick with the induced meaning of abortion then it is not a birth, it is a termination prior to birth.

    The problem with your question is that people do choose to kill "it". There are an estimated 50 clinics in the US alone that offer late term abortions. I am sure I don't need to remind you of what late term abortion involves, it is basically what Dr. Gosnell was convicted of, except for the technicality that the viable foetus was outside the womb when he sliced through its neck.

    There is a reason why the US Supreme court decided that the right to abortion was not absolute. Like any right it can be abused, and there needs to be safeguards that ensure it is not abused. There is a distinction to be made between a woman who becomes pregnant without desiring a pregnancy, and a decision to end the life of a viable foetus. It is mostly an education issue on both sides, educating pro-life that a "clump of cells" are not worth protecting, and educating pro-choice that once abortion is legal it has to be strictly regulated.


  • #1378
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    FISMA wrote: »
    Consider Irish law then and the situation solely with respect Irish parties (father, mother, and child) based in the Republic of Ireland.

    Should a man who is the father of a child be allowed to legally walk away from rights, responsibilities, liabilities, obligations, et al, just because he decides to, despite the mother's objections?

    I already dealt with this and you responded by saying you were talking about the US.


  • #1379
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the "removal or expulsion of a foetus from the uterus". It can occur naturally or be induced, the most common usage of the word abortion means induced. If we stick with the induced meaning of abortion then it is not a birth, it is a termination prior to birth.

    It is abnormal termination of pregnancy. This does not mandate that you kill the baby after you have removed it. If the baby is viable after the procedure I can see no moral or legal justification for killing it.

    A woman has the right to remove the foetus from her body. She even has the right to harm the foetus if that is necessary in order to remove it from her body. But once it is removed from her body her right to bodily privacy/autonomy has no more say as to what happens to the foetus.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    There are an estimated 50 clinics in the US alone that offer late term abortions. I am sure I don't need to remind you of what late term abortion involves, it is basically what Dr. Gosnell was convicted of, except for the technicality that the viable foetus was outside the womb when he sliced through its neck.

    That is not a "technicality".

    A woman has the right to forcibly remove the foetus from her body if necessary, even if doing so harms the foetus. But once the foetus is outside of her body she has no more right over it. She only had rights over it in the first place because it was in her body, and her rights extend only to removing it from her body.

    Saying it is a "technicality" whether the foetus was in or outside the body is like saying in issues of causing harm in the cause of self defence it is only a technicality whether you were actually being threatened by someone or not.

    Whether or not the foetus is in the woman's body or not is not a technicality, it is the entire issue. People seem to think that abortion is about the right to not be a mother, or the right to reverse the consequences of sex or some such. It isn't. It is the right to control how your body is used, and the right to refuse to allow your body to be used to sustain another person. It has nothing to do with the right to not be a mother or what ever nonsense the anti-abortion side think it is about.


  • #1380
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    A woman has the right to forcibly remove the foetus from her body if necessary, even if doing so harms the foetus. But once the foetus is outside of her body she has no more right over it. She only had rights over it in the first place because it was in her body, and her rights extend only to removing it from her body.

    You didn't answer my question. Does the right you are asserting extend all the way to birth? If that is your position, to my knowledge it is not supported in any country's legal system, save for a medically determined threat to the life or health of the mother. If you are saying there should be no restrictions on a woman's right to procure an abortion at any stage of preganancy, then I don't believe that position will ever become law. In fact the opposite, restrictions are likely to be strengthened rather than weakened.I think this is the point that we on the pro-choice have to concede, that regulation is necessary.


  • Advertisement
  • #1381
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I do get the point, Jernal. And it's a point well made. However, most of the abortion opposition that I've encountered is predicated upon the idea that elective abortion is the unjust killing of humans. Even if we somehow ended all the natural deaths of the unborn the world over we are still left with the problem of elective abortion. Hence the continued opposition to abortion.


    You may as well apply the same criticism to anti-war protesters for all the sense that it makes - at least considering the focus of their protest.


    "Why are you anti-war people not putting your energy into fighting the natural diseases that prematurely ends the life of many more people than war? If you really wanted to end suffering then this is where you should start!"


    In this regard, I suggest that you are also missing the focus of our argument.

    Fair enough, I do get the point about intent but it strikes me as odd that absolutely nothing is being done. To take your analogy about anti-war folk. Even within their demographic you'd find plenty of people involved or wishing for better sanitation and health facilities for every human alive. In the case of spontaneous abortions I couldn't find any single thing. Anyway, I think I'll leave it there.

    I do have one more question though:
    If you were in burning building filled with a puppy and a container that contained those 400 million embryos and you only had time to save the container or the puppy but not both, which would you save?


Advertisement