cattolico wrote: » If you have the means to save a person then you should use them. Its the exact same if a pregnant mother is dying because the pregnancy is killing her, you terminate to avoid death. There was no intention to kill the child, but you also can't allow the mother die.
cattolico wrote: » Personally I think we should as much as possible let nature takes its course and respect the dignity of the person.
cattolico wrote: » Well put. Also the Irish Constitution protects the rights of the unborn.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is unclear on the issue of whether, under its provisions, a child’s life begins at birth, at conception, or at some point in between. The possibility of asserting the rights of the unborn under the Convention raises the problem of the right to life of a fetus conflicting with the right to life, health, and best interests of a pregnant girl. Since the Convention entered into force in 1990, the practice of the treaty body charged with its interpretation and application has suggested an emerging normative approach to this problem. In light of the ambiguity in the Convention, international law has developed which considers that the rights of the mother supercede the right to life of an unborn child under the Convention. The law also affords a fetus limited right to protection, evidenced by the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s disapproval of the use of abortion as a contraceptive method. There is no regional human rights practice contrary to the emerging norm. In fact, an investigation of regional bodies’ positions on the rights of the unborn suggest that their future practice would be consistent with this emerging norm. Those states parties that submitted reservations and declarations safeguarding domestic legal abortion against the Convention predicted that the Convention’s ambiguity regarding fetal rights might be used to challenge the legality of abortion under international human rights law. Though subsequent interpretations of the Convention have not yet been used to challenge national abortion laws, the opposite of those reserving states’ predictions may prove true. The international law that has emerged from the Convention’s ambiguity might be used, instead, to strike down laws restricting the legality of and access to abortions for pregnant children, when abortion would protect a girl’s life, health, or best interests.
cattolico wrote: » Yeah. Well us Christians don't treat kids or Anyone else as medical waste
cattolico wrote: » Foetus an unborn child especially after attaining the basic structural plan of a human being.
Delirium wrote: » you realise that if you are using "attaining the basic structural plan of a human being" as a definition, then the brain-dead and corpses are people.
Nick Park wrote: » At the risk of being pedantic, dead people are still generally referred to, and treated as, people. They are human beings, albeit dead ones. They are obviously not afforded the same rights as the living - but most of us would treat the body of a dead person very differently than we would the corpse of a dog or a pigeon.
frag420 wrote: » Yet you treat a living dog better than a living woman by affording the dog access to an abortion if its health/life is under threat through pregnancy?:rolleyes:
Nick Park wrote: » For what it's worth I support the practice of performing abortions where a woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy. If my Old English Sheepdog's life was threatened by a pregnancy then I would have the dog put to sleep. Would you be so kind as to apologise for falsely and untruthfully accusing me of treating a living dog better than a living woman? Surely we can debate stuff on here without that kind of nonsense?
frag420 wrote: » For what its worth it was not directed at you but the general anti choice brigade here that hate the idea of a woman being in charge of her own body.
Yet you treat a living dog better than a living woman by affording the dog access to an abortion if its health/life is under threat through pregnancy?
Nick Park wrote: » You cited a rather inoffensive quote of mine and then posted underneath it: Whether the second person pronoun is singular or plural, by any understanding of the English language that was directed at me. It was a false and untruthful stereotype and generalisation, based purely on prejudice rather than on anything I had posted. Will you please apologise and withdraw the untruthful accusation?
frag420 wrote: » Yet you lot(some anti choice folks) treat a living dog better than a living woman by affording the dog access to an abortion if its health/life is under threat through pregnancy?:rolleyes:
Delirium wrote: » MOD NOTE Your original version of the post definitely read as being directed at the poster you replied to. Please remember to attack the post, not the poster. Thanks for your attention.
frag420 wrote: » Which I amended and explained above. I am human, I make mistakes.I am not infallible...........nobody is!!
robdonn wrote: » Ahem...
frag420 wrote: » Which I amended and explained above. I am human, I make mistakes. I am not infallible...........nobody is!!
Overheal wrote: » Unless you believe you are the policy decider on whether a dog gets an abortion, I think this line of argument is pointless and pedantic.
Nick Park wrote: » People can have strong views on this issue but still behave respectfully towards one another. For example, there is little to be gained by using pejorative terms such as 'anti-choice', 'anti-life', or 'pro-death'. It seems to me that reasoned discussion would be better facilitated if we used common terminology (pro-life & pro-choice - we can always use inverted commas if we want to make a point!).
volchitsa wrote: » I agree that the animal business needs to be dropped, and said so earlier. Not so sure about your "common terminology" point though, or not as you propose it anyway, when "pro-life" clearly implies that opponents are "anti-life", which is a patent attempt at propaganda, whereas "pro-choice" is literally true. No-one who wants abortion to be available wants a high number of abortions, so they aren't "pro-abortion" but they do want women to have a choice. Those who are against legalizing abortion do want to remove that choice, so pro-/anti-choice is not a complete misnomer in the way pro/anti-life is. I could settle for anti-abortion and pro-choice, but anything more towards the terms used by the anti-legalization of abortion movement seems to me to be far too loaded and inaccurate. What about pro-/anti- the 8th? Would that work for both sides?
Nick Park wrote: » I think you are chancing your arm somewhat. If we were discussing the death penalty, neither of us would accept terminology whereby those of us who are against capital punishment were labelled 'anti-choice' (on the basis that we are restricting judge's freedom to choose to impose the death penalty). I object to the 'anti-choice' implication just as much as you do to the 'anti-life' implication.
However, your suggestion concerning the 8th amendment merits further thought. Since the key phrases in that amendment, which you want to see removed, are 'right to life' and 'equal right to life', then that could provide us with commonly agreed terminology, no?
We could have the 'right to life' side and the 'anti-right to life' side. Or, if that's too long-winded, how about the 'pro-equality' and 'anti-equality' sides. Or we could both stop trying to have our cake and eat it, and we could adopt a reasonable compromise such as I suggested in my previous post.
In his ruling, which was issued Wednesday, Judge Myron Thompson said that Alabama had not identified a legal reason to cut off funding to the organization and that the state’s action probably violated a free-choice-of-provider provision of the federal Medicaid Act that limits a state’s ability to ban family planning providers for reasons unrelated to quality of care.
