Irish Government violating the human rights of women

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Should a woman be forced to give birth against her will?

My answer has always been, will always be - no.

Getting bogged down in arguing time frames and foetal development stages is focused more on the foetus IMO, than on the person who is actually carrying said foetus.

This is worth addressing separately to your nonsense above as you will find little disagreement with me here. I would just point out that the position I have espoused is not actually against this one, despite you making it sound like it is, but complimentary to it.

I would be entirely and wholly in agreement with the basis of your point. I too do not think any woman should be forced to do anything she does not with her body, including using it to give birth.

So when a woman is pregnant, and she does not want to give birth then we should be affording her every option to not do so that we coherently can. And termination of the fetus is one of those options.

But what your approach does not address is the simple fact that at SOME point the fetus gets rights too, including a right to life. So the things you simply want to dismiss and ignore become relevant at some point. And WHEN that point is becomes therefore an important point.

AFTER that point however, if a fetus has human rights and a right to life, then how is termination of it any less "murder" than me taking a new born and killing it? Any options we offer the woman in terms of terminations of her pregnancy therefore, for me, can not include termination of the Human Life, with Human Rights.

Anyone reading what you wrote would be forgiven for thinking that you would be happy to terminate the life of, say, a 36 week old developing child if it means the woman does not have to give birth. So at _some point_, wherever that point may be, you do have to get "bogged down" in the time frames and stages. Because at _some point_ the developing child reaches a point where it is equally deserving of our moral concerns and considerations.

So really I do not see one approach being "better" or "worse" than the other at all. Rather I think BOTH approaches are valid, BOTH have to be discussed, and BOTH have their caveats and conditions and relevancy that need to be explored in the discourse on the subject.

lazygal wrote: »

Are the baby parts sold afterwards? By the abortionist?

You know. The whole subject might be a bit of a laugh for the you. Poking jokes and silly comments like that. .

But the subject deserves a bit more maturity.

Do you actually think a baby being aborted is something you can be sarcastic about?

zeffabelli wrote: »

You can't get an amino until 18 weeks. The cut off points are a distracting futile angle of this debate. Really dumb.

The argument only has to be as good as the person it is addressing. The point of the post you replied to just now is not to argue cut offs, but to respond to someone that is describing abortion as "brutal". Please read my posts in the context of what they are replying to.

And my post that you replied to is simply pointing out that if you are terminating an entity that has no faculty of awareness or consciousness of ANY SORT then throwing out words like "brutal" is.... to use the kind of language you do..... "really dumb". The word simply is not applicable.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I dont claim to know how to respond to that.

Would it be ok to pull apart and adult if he/she was not conscience?

If a premature baby moves 3" or 4" out of the mother's body and onto a table. Would it be OK to pull it apart on the table ?

I am very uneasy about the whole subject. I cant see any reasoning to justify the act other than very very exceptional circumstances.

I would imagine once the pro life side starts showing pictures of the results and the facts of the procedure, the majority of Ireland would agree with me somewhat.

Is it ok to travel to avail of these proceedures or should we vote to prevent women and girls from accessing all types of abortions? Would showing pictures of c sections, torn periniums and post partum bleeding for weeks help the prolife lobby too?

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Really?? thats your argument.

Come on. grow up a bit.

Hang on, you said you know more than posters who haven't had children. I've been through two pregnancies and sections. So why isn't my anecdotal argument as good as yours?

zeffabelli wrote: »

Because you're just a woman, with less inherent value than the baby you gestate. That's is why you can have kidney failure, surgery, infections etc... And it doesn't matter because your autonomy is secondary.

Again these things may be possible.

But on the other hand.

A baby's arms and legs get torn apart quite often and is killed 100% of the time.

Another factor which is overlooked quite frequently is the mental state of the father after the knowledge of his child's life being taken.

I don't expect to change your mind , but I really cant understand how you are comfortable with the outcome of such a horror show and the taking of an innocent little life.
Is there a compromise to be had? If so. What is it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is worth addressing separately to your nonsense above as you will find little disagreement with me here. I would just point out that the position I have espoused is not actually against this one, despite you making it sound like it is, but complimentary to it.

I wasn't trying to make it sound like our positions were incompatible. We just use different standards is all. Yours are based upon arbitrary time limits that regard the unborn as a valid stakeholder in this discussion. Mine are not. Mine are based solely upon a woman's ability to determine her own choices for herself with regard to her pregnancy.

I would be entirely and wholly in agreement with the basis of your point. I too do not think any woman should be forced to do anything she does not with her body, including using it to give birth.

So when a woman is pregnant, and she does not want to give birth then we should be affording her every option to not do so that we coherently can. And termination of the fetus is one of those options.

But what your approach does not address is the simple fact that at SOME point the fetus gets rights too, including a right to life. So the things you simply want to dismiss and ignore become relevant at some point. And WHEN that point is becomes therefore an important point.

That arbitrary point in Irish law currently confers a right to life on an embryo upon implantation. That embryo has an equal right to life as the woman in whom it is implanted. I'm not dismissing or ignoring it, but you're right, I do consider arguments based upon specified time frames in the development of an unborn being are completely and utterly irrelevant, because anything, anything can happen to that unborn being within that time frame between conception and birth, so assigning rights to an unborn being at any point, before they are even born, has always been problematic for me personally.

AFTER that point however, if a fetus has human rights and a right to life, then how is termination of it any less "murder" than me taking a new born and killing it? Any options we offer the woman in terms of terminations of her pregnancy therefore, for me, can not include termination of the Human Life, with Human Rights.

The only right I'm aware of in Irish legislation that the unborn has, is the right to life. By repealing the 8th amendment, the unborn life no longer takes precedence over a woman's human rights. We can then terminate unborn life at any point while it is still unborn.

Anyone reading what you wrote would be forgiven for thinking that you would be happy to terminate the life of, say, a 36 week old developing child if it means the woman does not have to give birth. So at _some point_, wherever that point may be, you do have to get "bogged down" in the time frames and stages. Because at _some point_ the developing child reaches a point where it is equally deserving of our moral concerns and considerations.

I wouldn't be happy about terminating the life of an unborn child at any point tbh, but those points are irrelevant because of my already stated position that a woman should not be forced to continue her pregnancy, nor to give birth, if she does not want to, and therefore by that standard, the only point which remains relevant is the point at which she would be forced to continue her pregnancy and give birth against her will. My moral concerns and considerations aren't limited to a specific time frame. I am more concerned with the moral considerations and concerns of the woman who is pregnant and does not want to be, and does not want to give birth. Your argument is akin to "8th amendment lite".

So really I do not see one approach being "better" or "worse" than the other at all. Rather I think BOTH approaches are valid, BOTH have to be discussed, and BOTH have their caveats and conditions and relevancy that need to be explored in the discourse on the subject.

My argument is solely focused on the human rights of the woman who is pregnant, and solely focused on her human right to bodily autonomy. That right supersedes any perceived rights you would like to assign to an unborn life based upon time limits that you're comfortable with which suit your personal morality.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn't trying to make it sound like our positions were incompatible. We just use different standards is all. Yours are based upon arbitrary time limits that regard the unborn as a valid stakeholder in this discussion. Mine are not.

Regardless of whether it was your intention to make it sound that way or not, it certainly is a valid reading of how you wrote it. So I see utility in making explicit where the positions are complimentary and where not.

And there is nothing "arbitrary" about how I have chosen my time limits. I have chosen them for very explicit, very detailed reasons. And depending on when the developing entity attains human rights very much does determine when it becomes a "stakeholder" in the discussion. You can not simply ignore that to make it go away.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Mine are based solely upon a woman's ability to determine her own choices for herself with regard to her pregnancy.

As are mine, so do not pretend otherwise at any point lest you descend into error. I very much believe in the right of ALL people to do what they want with their body.

But this also has to scale with the rights of anyone those decisions affect. And if it is the case that one can argue morally that at some point in the development the entity attains human rights.... then from that point on wards the free choice of the woman to do what she wants freely with her body, does start to become relevant to the other.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

so assigning rights to an unborn being at any point, before they are even born, has always been problematic for me personally.

I have no doubt it is problematic. But it being problematic also would not warrant throwing ones hands up and not assigning it, or acknowledging its, rights. The problem does not simply go away because you have a well meant ideal about bodily freedom.

Clearly at SOME point in the life cycle of the human there is a point when we have to say "This entity now has human rights including the right to life" and yes, that is a deep philosophical and problematic discussion to have. And one that is not going to go away because it makes your simplistic approach simpler. I certainly see no intellectual or philosophical coherence in a position that say.... to give a random example..... "The day before birth it has no rights and the day after suddenly it has them all".

So that discussion has to be had, and a philosophically sensible place to assign rights has to be found, and if that point ends up being during pre-birth development.... then like it or not the discussion is relevant and not the red herring you want to pretend it to be.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We can then terminate unborn life at any point while it is still unborn.

And that is not only not what I would want, but it is not what I would want to sell to the Irish people whatever vote comes before them. Because that is exactly what the anti side will tell the public. "Vote yes to this change and people will be allowed murder unborn babies 24 hours before their scheduled birth date". I am not sure how many people are going to be ok with that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I am more concerned with the moral considerations and concerns of the woman who is pregnant and does not want to be, and does not want to give birth. Your argument is akin to "8th amendment lite".

I share those concerns. But IF there is another moral entity in the equation I have to have concerns for it too. Yours, not mine, is the lazy position here. Philosophically, morally, and intellectually. Because you are simply deleting and ignoring all moral concerns for one entity to satisfy the ideal of giving total autonomy to another.

Now if you could construct an argument for why we should HAVE no moral concerns for.... say.... the 35 week old entity then your position would become useful. But simply ignoring them due to their incompatibility with the ideal you want to hold on to.... is not. There ARE good arguments for having moral concerns for it at that age.... not just intellectually.... but you would have to publicly overcome the emotional ones the majority of people appear to have.

My position however addresses ALL of that. It shows and highlights the fact that before 12 weeks (actually I could argue well up to 26 for sound scientific reasons but it is superfluous to my needs) the fetal entity simply is not worthy of moral concern or rights. And I can educate and argue at length for why that is. So I can sell my position and defend it while you are sitting there simply saying "Oh no, ignore THAT bit for me please, just pay attention to this bit over here......."

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My argument is solely focused on the human rights of the woman who is pregnant

Then it would be useful to unpack exactly how, when and why you think we assign someone or something "Human Rights". What are you hanging it off and why?

It would appear, forgive if I am wrong but this is the only reading of your posts I can see, that you think "being born" is the focal point you hang it off. As if mere spacial positioning is a useful hanging point for rights. "It has no rights here but move it 6 inches in this direction and WOW look full human rights!!!". Nonsense. So what ARE you hanging it off?

Because as I see it you are right, your argument does SOLELY focus on the human rights of one entity, while simply dismissing it in the other. And you even appear to think that to be a good thing for reasons that remain entirely opaque to me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a mere movement of spatial positioning six inches one way or the other. The point at which that unborn life passes through the birth canal alive is the point at which human rights should be conferred

Then despite you saying that it is not "mere movement of spatial positioning" the fact is.... that it is very much exactly that. In fact straight away your position is a nonsense given how many births do not happen through the birth canal. Heard of C-Section have you not?

Anything can happen to it within the womb? So what? Anything can happen to me _right now_ and I still have rights. Anything can happen to the baby _just after_ birth but according to you it has rights.

So no, declaring a baby has no rights right up to the moment just before birth, but then suddenly magically has them.... is as much nonsense as it is internally inconsistent.

It appears to be born of absolutely nothing coherent except a very human desire to have a clear, intellectually easy, line in the sand to cling on to. And sheer comedy therefore comes from you presuming to describe the positions of others as "arbitrary". That is a very old pot calling a brand new stainless steel kettle black.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're actually making this more complicated than it needs to be with your arguing about philosophy and statistics

No, you are pretending it is less complicated than it actually is by ignoring all that stuff in favor of simply having positions on the issue that you could fit into a fortune cookie. It is head in the sand stuff from you and little more.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

if the term of her pregnancy falls outside your specified guidelines, then she would be prohibited from availing of an abortion.

Yes because, as I said, I am looking at the moral concerns of all parties concerned rather than simply sticking my head in the sand on one, in order to maintain a simplistic one size fits all solution for another.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not pro-choice when the small print includes terms and conditions attached

You are under a very erroneous illusion that "pro choice" means being pro any choice, anyone wants to make, in any case, any time. All choices have limitations. It is not one extreme or another.... full choice or no choice at all. That is a fantasy world you would be living in to espouse that.

Your nonsense would be like me saying "I think you have the right to put your fist where you want... but of course not at speed into the face of another" and you replying saying "Ah you do not think they have the rights to do what they want with their fist _at all_ then because look at you with your terms and conditions".

Choices have limitations, that does not mean one is against choice. I am 100% pro abortion choice when the fetus is at a stage where it simply does not have any moral concerns for us. It has no human rights.

When it TOO has human rights however, then I am going to incorporate that into my discourse. Our choices as humans are always mediated by their impact on other moral beings other than ourselves.

Screaming lunatics, from both sides, are going to drown out the voices of everyone else. For a lot of people on the fence, it'll be more a case of which side is most off-putting than which is most convincing.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Maybe the case that should be, if it is allowed, when is the cut off point where the mother (or anyone else) will no longer be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. When the baby can sense pain or have a survival instinct? Is this even known?

As I said, we can not be sure when a baby develops awareness and consciousness and can then suffer or feel pain. So it is impossible to draw a line in the sand that way.

Rather I think it is the wrong question. The right question is, can we identify points in development where we are as sure as sure can be that they DO NOT have consciousness, pain or awareness.

And when you ask the question that way, you quickly find that there are such points. And those are the points where I am personally pro-choice. There are scientific arguments I could offer to suggest we could argue this up to 24, 26, 28 weeks if I needed to.

But certainly with something like 14 weeks, before which the VAST majority of abortions actually do happen (over 90%) there is simply no reason whatsoever to think pain, suffering, consciousness or awareness are attributes of what is being terminated.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

And if pro choice manage to get this passed, what's to stop them chipping away at it till they allow a mother to terminate a full term baby? I know there is probably those who would have no problem with that.

We have seen on this very thread at least one user who has no "problem" with that. Well he expressed a discomfort with it, but does not let that get in the way of his ideal to allow just that.

Even within the pro choice community there is of course debate on when the cut offs should be, why, exactly what point the entity gains "human rights" and so on. But I hope it is safe to say that those within the pro-choice community making arguments for late term, let alone full term, abortions are very much in the minority. And as we have seen on this very thread their arguments for their case lie between incoherent, and entirely arbitrary. I doubt they would get much traction ever.

seamus wrote: »

I actually disagree entirely.

The problem here is that the two extremes in this case are not feasible;

- Don't change the constitution. Not possible, for so many reasons, legal and ethical.

- Repeal the 8th entirely. Legally do-able but an impossible referendum to win. Far too easy for the anti-human right wing nutjobs to invent scare stories about freshly-aborted-baby-part-vendors on every street corner and fallacies about 38-week pregnancies being thrown in the bin right, left and centre.

People are very motivated by fear. And the religious fundies are really good at creating fear - it's what religion is based on.
A "repeal the 8th" referendum will not win. Despite the victory in gay rights, the abortion question is a whole other beast. If the referendum got called today for a straight repeal, I'd stick my money on a no despite hoping for a yes.

A citizen's convention should, in theory, allow a government to get a sense of what the actual issues are. You have the debates beforehand, get an idea of what people's fears and worries are about the amendment, then you rewrite it to ensure those fears are allayed.

It worked for the marriage equality amendment - the text itself was beyond ambiguity, there was no wiggle room in it for the fearmongerers to claim it would lead to anything except marriage equality.

The straight repeal won't work. It will have to be replaced with an amendment that addresses the big issues, without leaving gaps for people to spin nonsense "what-if" scenarios where women use abortion as contraception.

Most likely any proposed amendment will be written in such a way that it won't be possible to abort after 18 or 20 weeks unless the child has a fatal foetal abnormality, and even then to require sign off from more than one doctor to confirm that the child's chance of survival outside of the womb is non-existent.

How you frame that in a constitution is something else entirely. If this were a rational debate, you would remove it from the constitution and put it entirely in law, but it's not a rational debate.

I think tbh, some people here are putting far too much emphasis on the perceived influence of religious extremists in referenda. They really don't IMO have the influence they had in this country say 30, even 20 years ago. I think they were given a kicking after the divorce referendum, and certainly in the most recent referendum on marriage equality, religious fundamentalists did their utmost to try and influence people's votes, but what they ignored was people's real, lived experience that just didn't jig with what religious fundamentalists were selling.

I think when it comes to the issue of abortion, people again will base their decisions on their real, lived experience, and won't take their moral guidance from religious fundamentalists. I think advocates for legislating for abortion in this country could easily get side-tracked and drawn into a long and protracted mud-slinging contest where religious fundamentalists don't particularly care how they are perceived by the general public, but advocates legislating for abortion should care about how they are perceived by the general public.

We already have a citizens convention in the Law Reform Commission, and I think most people are unlikely to be swayed either way on the issue, as adults they're likely to have their minds already made up at this point. The 8th amendment could be repealed without any necessity to replace it with anything. The terms and conditions could then be written in legislation which would allow for more flexibility in the future than having terms and conditions like the proposed terms based on times like 12, 18, or 24 weeks, and allow for other terms and conditions such as the determination to be made by a panel and so on, in line with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

cnocbui wrote: »

I think you missed the point.
I was after the photos of the man being made pregnant and being forced to have a baby.

To be fair, I think you missed the point, unless you were just trying to be funny.