Absolam wrote: » Didn't we discuss this ages and ages ago? I for one would be perfectly happy to ignore the wishes of a dead person if it could save the life of a living one. The idea that someone would put respect for a corpse ahead of saving the life of a child is utterly sickening, to be honest. To cut to the chase though, the High Court ruled that as there was actually no chance that the doctors could do anything that would save the life of the child, they could turn off the life support.
volchitsa wrote: » So is Absolam now advocating for the systematic removal of all usable organs without the consent of the person or the Next of Kin? Think how many lives could be saved.
Cabaal wrote: » Ignoring the wishes of a dead person and the dead persons NOK & family....ain't you just classy. Sure why allow abortions for suicidal women when we can just leave them kill themselves and try keep them alive like biological incubators against everyone's wishes. You've cracked it Absolam! :rolleyes:
Absolam wrote: » I for one would be perfectly happy to ignore the wishes of a dead person if it could save the life of a living one.
Absolam wrote: » I for one would be perfectly happy to ignore the wishes of a dead person if it could save the life of a living one. The idea that someone would put respect for a corpse ahead of saving the life of a child is utterly sickening, to be honest.
Cabaal wrote: » The case in question was this http://www.thejournal.ie/life-support-clinically-dead-woman-judgement-1852228-Dec2014/ So not only can we ignore women's wishes when they are living, we as a country can completely ignore them if the women is dead as well. Utterly sickening to put any family through such a thing if the person has specifically stated they do not wish to be kept on life support.
frag420 wrote: » Who is brave enough to put that in the christian forum Abortion thread......
The horrific court case involving a young pregnant brain-dead woman might not be a one-off The last government legislated for an individual’s autonomy in medical cases – except if you’re a pregnant woman, writes barrister Kate Butler.
As former minister for health James O’Reilly noted, the AHD “has been recognised as an expression of an individual’s autonomy”.
That is, except if you’re a pregnant woman. A woman can create an AHD that states her wishes to refuse treatment in certain situations, for example, if declared brain dead. However, under s.85(6)(b) of the new law, where a woman makes an AHD specifically setting out that she wishes to refuse treatment, even if she is pregnant, medical professionals are required to ignore those wishes.
So, let’s say you are a woman of child bearing age, perhaps with a serious illness, and you read about that case over Christmas 2014 and thought, ‘I don’t want my family and children to go through that horror show, I’m going to draw up an advance healthcare directive’. And let’s say that in the AHD you specifically state that you wish to refuse treatment, even where you are pregnant and where the foetus is 20 weeks or less. If that scenario then arises, despite your clear instructions otherwise, life support will not be turned off: s.85(6)(b) kicks in and the medics must automatically refer the case to court.
Instead of providing that doctors may exercise their discretion in cases where the foetus has minimal chance of survival, the government – shackled by the Eighth Amendment – has required an automatic referral to court. Bizarrely, this is seen by policy makers as a vindication of the woman’s rights, because her will and preference will be taken into account by the court.
To give a foetus optimal chances of survival, it should be in utero for 32 weeks. In P.P. v HSE, this woman’s family were looking at a scenario of waiting potentially 17 weeks until they could lay their deceased loved one to rest.
robdonn wrote: » area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c-2849"]Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be Think we might all be a bit guilty of this in this thread. :P
robdonn wrote: » Why the Irish Government Continues to Ignore the UNs Criticism of Irish Abortion Laws
Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » But surely you would accept that in practice the UN as an institution does not accept "the right to life of the unborn" as the UNHCR has been pushing various countries to liberalise their abortion laws for several years.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » And is it not up to the UN itself to decide how its founding documents should be interpreted?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Lest it be misunderstood, I included the UNCRC with those other documents by way of showing that as I said in the post - all terms are acceptable, depending upon context. It wasn't included by way of an argument either way on abortion, but specifically for the fact that it makes reference to providing legal protection for the child before birth. It doesn't make reference to providing legal protection for the foetus before birth. The other documents were also provided with the intent of showing that they don't use the term "foetus" either, but the question was when does "the unborn" begin, and the documents I provided by way of allowing the poster to inform themselves, for themselves, rather than be influenced by propaganda from either side. That's why I suggested they substitute "the unborn" for "the foetus" if it helps their understanding.
oldrnwisr wrote: » OK, so I hate to state the glaringly obvious here but it should be clear to anyone that the Convention doesn't have either a pro-life or pro-choice stance. I thought Absolam already explained this fairly clearly in post #1297. The Convention was signed by EVERY member of the UN. It was ratified by countries with both pro-life stances (e.g. Ireland) and abortion on demand (e.g. UK). It should be clear from the wording of the articles that the Convention takes a neutral position on abortion. If the preamble is a pro-life position then Article 6 would require abortion to be outlawed by members but it doesn't. The UNCRC is a very important document and does help to protect countless children from harm. But it is not relevant to an abortion debate. By either side.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » But surely you would accept that in practice the UN as an institution does not accept "the right to life of the unborn" as the UNHCR has been pushing various countries to liberalise their abortion laws for several years. And is it not up to the UN itself to decide how its founding documents should be interpreted?
Absolam wrote: » In fairness, you are offering your own understanding of the convention, so I don't see why a rebuttal ought to be held to a different standard. For instance your assertion that there is this point in the convention "The UNCRC defines the child as a person under 18 years of age." seems to be your understanding, rather than a definite declaration of the Convention. Unless you can point out where it defines a child as a person under eighteen years of age, as I can't see it; as far as I can see it says " child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Now it doesn't define a human being any more than it defines a person, but generally a human being is considered to be a man, woman, or child of the species Homo Sapiens, so you have a bit of an issue there; is it not a human being because it's not a child, is it not a child because it's not a human being? That's not an argument that's going anywhere. Still, at least we know a foetus is definitely below the age of eighteen years no matter how you look at it, so that solves that part. Luckily, we're very much helped out by the fact that the Declaration of the Rights of the Child in the Preamble specifically calls out the child before birth as being included in it's use of the term child; "Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth," which is then echoed in paragraph 9 of the Preamble of the Convention itself; "[A]s indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, ‘the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.". I think it's fair to say the Convention definitely includes children before birth as children. It's fair to say that's specifically the portion of the Convention that One Eyed Jack repeated verbatim (and bolded) in his post, in fact. Personally I think the debate really centres around personhood, to be honest, rather than the definition of a child, but the UNCHR doesn't concur with the pro choice point of view about what defines a child (if there actually is a pro choice view of what defines a child). In light of the original Declaration, member States pushed for two different definitions of child when drafting the Convention; some members of the Human Rights Commission Working Group would have defined a child as "every human being from the moment of birth", and other members proposed as a definition “every human being from the moment of conception.” As the working group operated on a consensus basis, neither prevailed; the current wording was adopted as it left grounds for States Parties to maintain that the Convention does guarantee protection to the unborn child, whilst allowing other State Parties to assert no prohibition on abortion is expressed in the Convention. This led to some States announcing they leaned one way, such as the UK declaring it would consider that the Convention applies “following a live birth.”, whilst others, such as Germany declared that including the ninth preambular paragraph was “a great success, because it was the first time that the right to life of the unborn child had been recognized in an international convention.” In short, the UNCHR copped out and left it up to individual States to decide for themselves precisely when being a child begins, they only defined when being a child ends.
aloyisious wrote: » Re my offer to stand ready to be corrected, ta for pointing out that it was my assertion on what the convention said about the child.. I opened the link I provided and went to the 2nd Paragraph to check what was written there. I copied it and the 1st para above it. Both are posted below...... If you think the Childrens Rights Alliance article in the link provided I was quoting from has misread, misunderstood or misquoted what the UNCRC stated, I can only suggest you contact them and point out what you see.
aloyisious wrote: » Ref rebuttal and different standard; ?????? As I did not make any assertion about rebuttal and different standard, I decline to debate a non sequitur. TTFN......
One eyed Jack wrote: » No, I didn't think volchista was questioning what sex my wife was
One eyed Jack wrote: » What statement would I be afraid of making about my own intellect? That I have dyslexia?
One eyed Jack wrote: » That sounds fantastic. Tell me more about your ability to empathise with homeless people though you have no experience of being homeless.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I didn't say you accused me of lying, I said you had on previous occasions questioned my credibility. If the Moderators will show me some leniency on this occasion as cross-forum posting is an infractable offence, but you asked for examples where you had previously questioned my credibility and now claim you weren't aware of my declared position. May I be allowed to refresh your memory -http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93361275&postcount=182http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96966220&postcount=159http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96968494&postcount=161http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96961886&postcount=101http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97816334&postcount=36 As demonstrated above, I was aware of the upcoming accusation based upon the evidence provided by our previous interactions regarding the issue of abortion. It has nothing to do with any version of "if the cap fits", nor a guilty conscience when I have nothing to feel guilty for not doing. Your attempted insinuations, accusations, and claims that you had no previous knowledge of my position on the issue, are for yourself to sort out.
It wasn't talking about you behind your back as it was part of a discussion in the public domain.
Huntergonzo wrote: » At what point do these rights of the unborn actually kick in, like does my sperm have the same rights as me? and if they don't then why not? they're unborn potential humans. Also who gets to decide when these rights magically appear and by extension rights of the mother disappear?
aloyisious wrote: » Ireland is a signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child UNCRC. I assume it is that which One eyed Jack is referring to with his "Convention on the Rights of the Child". There is one point, amongst many, in the convention and it is this - The UNCRC defines the child as a person under 18 years of age. That seem's to me to indicate that, as the age of a child start's after being birthed from the womb, that a feotus is not a person legally and that the convention does NOT apply to a feotus. I stand ready to be corrected on that point if some-one can find in the convention a definite declaration to the contrary on when a child/person starts his/her existence in life and NOT some-one's understanding of the convention.
aloyisious wrote: » It's a point of this debate between Pro-Life and Pro-choice people that there is a dispute about the definition of a child. Pro-Life people regards a feotus as a baby, a child while Pro-Choice people believe that a feotus is NOT a baby, a child. The UNCRC seem's to concur with the Pro-Choice POV about what defines a child. Writing that, I do NOT speak for the UN, only about what I see is written in the UNCRC part I wrote above.
volchitsa wrote: » So given that this is all reported alleged information about someone else who nevertheless doesn't feel strongly enough to come on and speak for themselves (does she even know her views are being put up for discussion by her spouse I wonder?) I think we can presume he's actually projecting onto a third party beliefs and attitudes that he simply doesn't want to own up to himself.
One eyed Jack wrote: » We certainly don't live in any pinko-lefty times or any of the rest of that crap, we live in a society in which the vast majority of people are conservative, right-wing, Roman Catholics like myself. I'm also a ferocious hypocrite btw, so I wouldn't even waste time pointing fingers at the apparent hypocrisy of my position. There's no hypocrisy in arguing what is a civil matter, and nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Bull. You ACTUALLY thought the user was questioning what sex your wife is? Seriously? You think anyone here, aside possibly from yourself, is fooled by that? Because if it actually is true that you thought that was what the user meant............ then you are making a statement about your own intellect that I really think you do not want to be making.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Give me a minute to think about that one... :pac: At least it's a distraction from the gammy hip that makes me walk with a limp, so in that sense, yep, people definitely overlook (*sniggers*, terrible pun, should be ashamed of myself ) some flaws more than others. Both of those though distract from the flaws other people can't really see which is that I can't really read nor write for sh1t, I use my phone to record meetings so I can transcribe my notes later, and reading itself is just a pain in the ass because it takes me fcuking ages, and then I'm still questioning myself did I understand what I read properly or did the person I'm communicating with actually understand what I was saying or were they just saying they did in order to get me to shut the hell up! Dyslexia, great fun at the best of times when misinterpretation can have some humorous results, pain in the ass most of the time though. Meh, I try to work with what I'm given, something about life, lemons and lemonade, there are people in far worse positions than I am
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » No I think it patently obvious that you read the words "the fact that a woman (according to you) is against abortion" and to willfully misread them you applied what was in the brackets to the word before the brackets rather than what followed them.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » By using things we DO have an experience of as a basis for extrapolation. We do it all the time. Maybe you lack the faculty. The rest of us do not. I have no experience of being homeless for example. But I can empathize with those that are because I have experiences which parallel the experiences they have. Periods where I had no money. Periods where I was cold and hungry. Periods where I felt I had no security or personal autonomy. To name but a few, but the list goes on and on. That is how empathy works for most of us, even if not for you. ou do not have to go through, have gone through, or be capable of going through something in order to empathize with someone who has. You merely have to be able to parallel experiences you HAVE had, and your feelings and emotions in those moments, in ways where they map on to each other. Your fantastical version of empathy precludes any empathy at all because even when people have similar experiences.... they are never THE SAME. So under the lights of your nonsensical definitions of empathy, it is almost impossible to empathize with anything at all.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Most people I know who work in homeless services charities are grateful for every cent they get, no matter where it comes from, and are grateful to anyone who gets involved, in any capacity, and for you to suggest that these boys "aren't doing enough" shows how much you truly know about what it is to be homeless - you're grateful for any bit of help you receive, no matter who or where it comes from, and I say that as a person who was homeless 20 years ago, and I've done what I can since for other people who were in my situation, and I think these boys ought to be commended and given credit for what they're doing, not picked apart by some finger wagging journalist or some anonymous person on the internet who isn't out there with them!
One eyed Jack wrote: » Having been homeless and an alcoholic with a penchant for nose candy in the past, I'd say definitely trying to give up smokes is the worst!
volchitsa wrote: » I very much doubt that I accused you of lying about your declared position, because I wasn't really aware of what it was until this thread. ... As I say, I don't think that is true, I'm going to have to ask for examples.
volchitsa wrote: » Well all I can say is that you were apparently aware of the upcoming accusation before I had formulated it myself. I think that's a version of "if the cap fits" or perhaps just your guilty conscience!
volchitsa wrote: » Again I won't bother with the rest, mainly for time reasons. Despite the fact that you continue to discuss my posts with other posters, something I find most disagreeable. It's like being talked about behind my back, but deliberately loud enough so that I can hear. It seems unbelievably rude. But maybe that's just me. I wouldn't want to lack empathy with posters who feel the need to refight past posts with third parties, presumably to prove they were right really, once the actual poster has "left the room", so to speak! :rolleyes:
One eyed Jack wrote: » I think it would probably be easier for you to educate yourself tbh, as you don't appear to be amenable to the idea that everyone is going to use different definitions and actually all are acceptable depending upon context. For example -A guide to the implementation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human RightsAbortion and the European Convention on Human RightsImplementation of the Protection of Life During Prenancy Act 2013: Guidance Document for Health ProfessionalsConvention on the Rights of the Child Plenty of reading material there to be going ahead with, including in the first two, many references to "the unborn child", and the third document includes the POLDPA which references "the unborn", and defines "the unborn" as - "“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman" and that last document includes this little nugget - "Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth" (bold emphasis my own)
Deleted User wrote: » So (as I've already said) the fallacy was misplaced but the point remains. A person can consider themselves whatever they want. I can call myself an Oil Painting if I feel like it. It doesn't necessarily make it so.
