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

Abortion

1356

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    If it is deemed illegal for me to have my liver removed, do I have control over my body?
    You have the option to obey the law or not.
    In this particular case I would abstain, because my liver is just fine for now as it is.
    The morality or question of whether that is good or bad, I think is subjective.
    But if you obey that law for the laws sake, then you are a complicit slave to it.
    If it was so black and white though, I could say that it is also ok to let an insane person torture themselves, if that was their wish. But I don't think i could. Maybe my weakness, maybe my ideas are not absolute.
    But I use my own judgement to decide subjectively which I prefer and if I was insane and wanted to torture myself, I would probably spout the same thing, while running away wth my torture equipment, shouting " gotta catch me first!".


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Well, any order or social justice would be coincidental. And temporary.
    That would be a preference for me I think, at least until the stage where we learn to govern ourselves better.
    In an anarchy based society, things would be broken down and improved on regularly.
    It's my view that we haven't spent enough time working on our foundations, with regard economics for example, or politics.
    It looks to me like this lack of attention and re-iteration has caused a lot of issues globally.

    You don't need a majority to turn to violence to turn a society into Hell. Just a few will suffice.

    You're right, it's never worked out without bloodshed and violence anywhere else in history, so a first time is long overdue - right?

    You mean turn away from anarchy back to a system where individual rights are limited for the good of the group?

    We are agreed that for now violence is inevitable in some form.

    I didn't say change would be easy from such an inflexible raised up tower of a system of thinking and acting.
    Faster iterations I think would make for smoother sailing. But at the same time, this extended period we have been on with the current forms of governing, has taught us many a lesson. I see it as a large and dangerous leap the further we go with the current models for control.

    Control is the key here.
    The level of control of individual lives in an anarchy based system, would be as minimal as possible. But still required I think. Like a police force made of individuals for their community.
    But I am sure there are many interpretations of what a functioning anarchy based society would look like. It should probaly never be functioning, as the whole idea is to re-iterate and improve through breaking things down and rebuilding. As far as I have read anyway.



    The main topic was Irish attitudes to abortion, if I remember correctly.
    You misunderstood, I wrote via those thing. We drifted a bit when hitting on morality.
    Now we are on governing systems lol
    Even if one is amoral, that does not mean that one does not see the value in morality - Machiavellianism being a prime example of this. The anarchic 'utopia' you've suggested is anything but, it simply would result in a worse situation for the vast majority and after a period of chaos and bloodshed ironically return back to the ordered system that is sought to escape.
    I don't know much of his theories to be honest. I am still digging my way through Nietzsche. I would guess machiavelli did not have the same idea in mind as me, but I will have to check sometime soon! Maybe he did believe in this process of re-iteration.
    But as you can see from my replies above, I would expect a certain amount of turmoil with any drastic changes. It may not need to be drastic though.
    Do we chop down the tree at the base and risk it landing on a house? Or do we dismantle it carefully from the top down?
    Ultimately, unless you want to live in a cave in the mountains as a hermit, society requires that those living in it compromise to coexist. That means individual rights are sacrificed for the greater good.

    Individual rights are sacrificed for the greater more powerful "good", maybe :D
    At the moment It is probably illegal in Ireland to live in a cave(so i don't even have that luxury as an option, and if I don't have money or am not assigned to the corporation of Ireland, I don't get access to a house either.
    There is still a dominant element or two that is directing the course of history, I think. The most rich and powerful materially we could say.
    It is through culture and control of education and entertainment that society comes to believe in it's own enslavement. Or so I think is most likely the situation for now.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Torakx wrote: »
    In an anarchy based society, things would be broken down and improved on regularly.
    Says who? What would motivate it? Why do you presume it would be 'improved on' regularly? If this is just your personal opinion and you've nothing to back it up, fair enough, but I will basically dismiss it as wishful thinking then.
    We are agreed that for now violence is inevitable in some form.
    Sure. It's part of the human condition unfortunately. However we do strive to create a society where violence is limited, not given free reign.
    Faster iterations I think would make for smoother sailing.
    Wishful thinking or do you have something to back that up?
    The level of control of individual lives in an anarchy based system, would be as minimal as possible. But still required I think. Like a police force made of individuals for their community.
    So you do accept that people's personal freedoms must be sacrificed for the greater good, after all? After all, what need is there for any police force except to enforce.
    But I am sure there are many interpretations of what a functioning anarchy based society would look like.
    It might be an idea if you research the topic first before throwing your support behind it.
    I don't know much of his theories to be honest. I am still digging my way through Nietzsche. I would guess machiavelli did not have the same idea in mind as me, but I will have to check sometime soon! Maybe he did believe in this process of re-iteration.
    I brought him up in relation to morality and being amoral - you can still be the latter and believe in the former.
    It may not need to be drastic though.
    More wishful thinking?

    And that's really what my opinion of your arguments comes down to. You may feel you've given this a lot of thought, but you've done so apparently from a knowledge vacuum. As a result many of your presumptions amount to little more than wishful thinking, that in reality don't work that way.

    It's not a bad thing that you're asking these questions, of course, but I suspect that you've some way to go before you can come out with educated answers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    There is a fairly good lecture given by noam Chomsky on what he thinks anarchy means.
    It should be easy to find on youtube and I can find a link if anyone is interested.
    It is a good start to seeing options and at least breaking down some of the misconceptions about it.
    I don't remember if he spoke of this iteration process. I think he may have.

    I agree with the latter part of your reply though
    I do have much to learn. And this is very much part of that process.
    My ideas are flexible and I hope they are challenged. I will take on anything that makes sense or shows an idea to be flawed.
    I can be slow to decide though. Deep wells and all (see sig)

    As far as anarchy based societies and me are concerned, it seems the best direction to aim for so far. Because I have a strong will towards freedom of the individual. Which of course means on the topic of abortion I would have to vote pro choice if voting.
    A weak attempt at a return to topic. Maybe you can help :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 oldozer


    Torakx wrote: »
    There is a fairly good lecture given by noam Chomsky on what he thinks anarchy means.
    It should be easy to find on youtube and I can find a link if anyone is interested.
    It is a good start to seeing options and at least breaking down some of the misconceptions about it.
    I don't remember if he spoke of this iteration process. I think he may have.

    I agree with the latter part of your reply though
    I do have much to learn. And this is very much part of that process.
    My ideas are flexible and I hope they are challenged. I will take on anything that makes sense or shows an idea to be flawed.
    I can be slow to decide though. Deep wells and all (see sig)

    As far as anarchy based societies and me are concerned, it seems the best direction to aim for so far. Because I have a strong will towards freedom of the individual. Which of course means on the topic of abortion I would have to vote pro choice if voting.
    A weak attempt at a return to topic. Maybe you can help :D

    Not all that gone on friend Naom as he seems to shy away at certain subjects. But to take a most valid point. Not really on topic as you say.

    Personally a thought on this thread to begin with. Maybe still on the river bank...Fishing.

    Dozer.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11 Bezuhov


    Wow !!
    Just looked in to see if things had moved on since I decided this thread had become a waste of time re its original subject.
    Thank you all for illustrating my original point that useful discussion of abortion is only possible if common ground can first be found on the question of when life / rights begin. ( possible I would emphasise, not guaranteed )
    Enough !


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Bezuhov wrote: »
    Thank you all for illustrating my original point that useful discussion of abortion is only possible if common ground can first be found on the question of when life / rights begin.
    What on Earth makes you think that anyone currently engaged in the political debate over Abortion has the slightest interest in useful discussion?

    As I already pointed out the whole thing is a propaganda war by two diametrically opposed sides seeking to win the hearts, and not minds, of the majority.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 oldozer


    Bezuhov wrote: »
    Wow !!
    Just looked in to see if things had moved on since I decided this thread had become a waste of time re its original subject.
    Thank you all for illustrating my original point that useful discussion of abortion is only possible if common ground can first be found on the question of when life / rights begin. ( possible I would emphasise, not guaranteed )
    Enough !

    A tad unfair to call this thread a waste of time. Any debate on abortion is far from a waste of time. It is something sorely needed in the times we live in. A practice which has been with us since the dawn of time, we just now have to justify it, make it legal for whatever that may be worth. There is no common ground in my mind as to this act. I have stated so, but did you answer me on that point ?

    I did join this thread as I thought it interesting. I also thought the OP had a need to understand why us Irish seemed to not agree with abortion. I did call out the OP as I was of the opinion of this being a bait thread. My experience on forums makes me wonder when the OP disappears, but this OP did make comment when I first made remark as to lack of interest on their part. We do have to keep in mind though of the OP who said they were not of this place.

    Like you I may have been annoyed as this thread seemed to deviate. Not my business though as to how people think. It is a forum of many minds. Like many forums I have been on, the wonder of it all is. Even the fool will make the genius. I had always been a curse to Bible people on forums I would visit in the past. I did ask questions of said Bible people here. One answered me which lead me to search, find answers. Not making me believe their point of view, but I did learn a little in my search.

    Common ground on how life begins is not the remit of this OP in any regard. It does have space here if you are willing to put forward a theory on it ? How it has any effect on abortion ? A point of view which you seem to think is relevant ? My own view on life and creation is here as stated in one of my posts. How the embryo got there is not the problem. It is life or it is not. There are no grey areas there as we are always given but two choices. How we deal with the result of those two choices is the problem.

    Dozer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    oldozer wrote: »
    It is life or it is not.
    Not as simple as that. Life does not guarantee a right to that life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 oldozer


    Not as simple as that. Life does not guarantee a right to that life.

    Life is just life. After life there is death. We could agree to differ as to what happens in between. Birth though results in death.

    Dozer.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    oldozer wrote: »
    We could agree to differ as to what happens in between.
    Indeed we could and it would demonstrate that the debate is not as simple as "it is life or it is not" - in fact it makes all the difference.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 oldozer


    Indeed we could and it would demonstrate that the debate is not as simple as "it is life or it is not" - in fact it makes all the difference.

    Conception is life. That seems simple regardless of the how of it. Death is the lack of life. Hence the need for debate as the OP suggested.

    A bit simplistic perhaps, we could say life is created. At what stage do we determine the right to end life ?

    Dozer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    oldozer wrote: »
    Hence the need for debate as the OP suggested.
    TBH, the OP did not really suggest any debate of any kind. Only a straw poll for her own purposes - if all she was doing was researching for a propaganda piece (pro or against) she'll cherry pick whatever she wants anyway.
    A bit simplistic perhaps, we could say life is created. At what stage do we determine the right to end life ?
    Pretty much at any stage, as things stand.

    Of course even if it is acceptable to end life at any stage, it begs the question under what circumstances and whether one may do so through direct or indirect action, or through omission of action.

    After all, we can already condemn others to death, literally, without doing a thing and we accept this in society as moral, or at least not immoral; the parents of a dead child that could be the doner of an organ for another can refuse to allow the donation, without which the potential recipient will die. A classic case of where the right to life is superseded by the right to bodily integrity of another.

    Abortion is not exactly the same, of course. It involves action, rather than omission of action, but at the same time it involves the bodily integrity of a living person, not a potentially dead one.

    So do I have an answer? No. But I know enough to say the answer does not lie in the simplistic question of whether the fetus is a person or not, let alone alive or not (a cow is alive after all). Being a person does not guarantee anyone an absolute right to life.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    oldozer wrote: »
    Conception is life. That seems simple regardless of the how of it. Death is the lack of life. Hence the need for debate as the OP suggested.

    A bit simplistic perhaps, we could say life is created. At what stage do we determine the right to end life ?

    Dozer.

    Rights are not absolute. A woman's right to choose has constraints and conditions, and so does our collective right to life. Both sides fall down with black and white thinking on the notion of rights in the first place. There is not one single right that is not compromisable.

    Children have even less rights. They can't vote, they can't sit on juries, they can't sign medical forms, until they reach adulthood, legally the line drawn at 18. The further they move from dependancy, the closer they get to obtaining rights. What rights to babies have? Feotus...and then you get into this infinite regression that gets us nowhere.

    The law works in such a way that it has to draw approximate lines in the sand. An rights only have meaning in terms how law can and will enforce them.

    To me the whole where does life begin question is pointless and unanswerable. It gets very xeno's paradox (achilles and the tortoise.) Let's accept it is a life. Fine, but even with that how would you justify enforced pregnancy and labor punishable through law enforcement and murder charges? How do you justify the risks of pregnancy etc? How are you going to support a 50 year old woman facing retirement and having to raise a down syndrome child and also risk her life in a pregnancy and delivery?

    If one goes through this line of thinking we might want to imprison women who smoke and drink during pregnancy? Are we going to have manslaughter charges for still births due to drug and alcohol abuse? The fact that Ireland does not do this, "confesses" that they do not see parity between the life of an adult and the life that is still in gestation.

    [Interesting that we don't have a right to end our own life though without being locked up by a psychiatrist- the only people who can do this without a jury- if it is your body why shouldn't you be able to do what you want with it- demonstrates a radical contradiction in the notion of bodily autonomy- this right is not absolute either.]

    Abortion has to be the most unanswerable moral question there is. I certainly don't have any stable perspective or solution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 oldozer


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Rights are not absolute. A woman's right to choose has constraints and conditions, and so does our collective right to life. Both sides fall down with black and white thinking on the notion of rights in the first place. There is not one single right that is not compromisable.

    Children have even less rights. They can't vote, they can't sit on juries, they can't sign medical forms, until they reach adulthood, legally the line drawn at 18. The further they move from dependancy, the closer they get to obtaining rights. What rights to babies have? Feotus...and then you get into this infinite regression that gets us nowhere.

    The law works in such a way that it has to draw approximate lines in the sand. An rights only have meaning in terms how law can and will enforce them.

    To me the whole where does life begin question is pointless and unanswerable. It gets very xeno's paradox (achilles and the tortoise.) Let's accept it is a life. Fine, but even with that how would you justify enforced pregnancy and labor punishable through law enforcement and murder charges? How do you justify the risks of pregnancy etc? How are you going to support a 50 year old woman facing retirement and having to raise a down syndrome child and also risk her life in a pregnancy and delivery?

    If one goes through this line of thinking we might want to imprison women who smoke and drink during pregnancy? Are we going to have manslaughter charges for still births due to drug and alcohol abuse? The fact that Ireland does not do this, "confesses" that they do not see parity between the life of an adult and the life that is still in gestation.

    [Interesting that we don't have a right to end our own life though without being locked up by a psychiatrist- the only people who can do this without a jury- if it is your body why shouldn't you be able to do what you want with it- demonstrates a radical contradiction in the notion of bodily autonomy- this right is not absolute either.]

    Abortion has to be the most unanswerable moral question there is. I certainly don't have any stable perspective or solution.

    Kudos to you as you do pose very important thoughts. Those thoughts as does the thoughts of the Corinthian on here. You do both answer your own questions in the last line of writing in each of your posts............

    Sorry there now if I seem to be simplistic. The answer though I have always thought of without is always within. Very important thoughts indeed in this, and some other posts on here. Lurkers beware maybe, become more pro active. I do have a g/daughter who is a psychiatric nurse. I was and still am her favourite subject of thought.

    I'm off now to another place where mods tolerate me. I would be known there as something of a tread killer/paddy is drunk again sort of thing. Thank you and the Corinthian for further thought. Know this though, you are not alone....Tuaire dom do lamh.

    My regards Murt.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    oldozer wrote: »
    You do both answer your own questions in the last line of writing in each of your posts............
    Actually neither of us does.

    The only thing that either of us says with any certainty is that the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or not is not answered with whether the fetus is a person (let alone alive) or not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9 caitie


    Abortion views and opinions can't be assigned to gender or age. I often find that because I'm a young, highly educated woman with liberal views, people turn to me giving opinions assuming that I also feel the same, and they are shocked when I turn around and tell them that I think that it's completely wrong.

    I think a child does not ask to be created. When there are videos such as 'The Silent Scream' showing the foetus trying to wriggle away from the 'hoover' and opening it's mouth trying to scream, how can we say that is not a life?

    When a mother is sick, a foetus can help to heal her. The foetus is trying to survive. Just because the foetus can not complain, take legal action, or demand its rights do not mean that its rights should be taken away when it is convenient for those of us who can complain and demand.

    I know people feel differently about this issue, but to me abortion is a form of convenient murder.

    As I said earlier about opinions not being assigned to gender or age, my mother (who is obviously older than me!) is pro choice, and my dad is pro life. It's down to whether people value the life of the mother or the child more, I think.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    caitie wrote: »
    As I said earlier about opinions not being assigned to gender or age, my mother (who is obviously older than me!) is pro choice, and my dad is pro life. It's down to whether people value the life of the mother or the child more, I think.

    If you are going to choose which one to "value" more, how do you choose your values?

    How did you come to decide the feotus' life is more value?

    What is your criteria for assessment?

    And how do you abstract that into universal application?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9 caitie


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    If you are going to choose which one to "value" more, how do you choose your values?

    How did you come to decide the feotus' life is more value?

    What is your criteria for assessment?

    And how do you abstract that into universal application?

    I just think that the life of the unborn child is as important as the life of the living child, they are living even though we cannot physically hold them yet. And for me personally a child's life is worth more than an adults, children are innocent and have their whole lives ahead of them. That's just where I get my reasoning from, I know not everyone will agree, but when I think of it the way I do there's no way I could support abortion.

    It's probably also a bit to do with the fact that I wasn't a planned baby, my parents weren't yet married and when I was born we all lived in one room, and they struggled to afford everything. If abortion was as readily available here as it is in other countries, they could very well have decided that it wasn't yet the right time for them, and I wouldn't be here. When I think of that I think of all the aborted babies who could have had lives and families.

    It's just a very personal opinion!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    caitie wrote: »
    I just think that the life of the unborn child is as important as the life of the living child, they are living even though we cannot physically hold them yet. And for me personally a child's life is worth more than an adults, children are innocent and have their whole lives ahead of them. That's just where I get my reasoning from, I know not everyone will agree, but when I think of it the way I do there's no way I could support abortion.

    It's probably also a bit to do with the fact that I wasn't a planned baby, my parents weren't yet married and when I was born we all lived in one room, and they struggled to afford everything. If abortion was as readily available here as it is in other countries, they could very well have decided that it wasn't yet the right time for them, and I wouldn't be here. When I think of that I think of all the aborted babies who could have had lives and families.

    It's just a very personal opinion!

    How do you apply this universally? How would you apply this let's say to a woman who has already had three caesarian's?

    Let's assume partity in value of the life of the child outside the womb to the child inside the womb. I will follow you there.

    However, the life in the womb has a different set of consequences to the life of the mother than the life outside the womb does.

    How do you reconcile this in order to apply universal principal?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    caitie wrote: »
    It's just a very personal opinion!
    This is all very well, but what happens when someone else's opinion is the diametric opposite to yours? Is their "very personal opinion" as valid? As zeffabelli points out, the problem with opinions is that the opinions are subjective and thus cannot be applied beyond the person who has them, which is a bit pointless if debating abortion in terms of universal morality.

    To put it another way; opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one.
    And for me personally a child's life is worth more than an adults, children are innocent and have their whole lives ahead of them.
    I'm sorry, but I do have to bring you up on this point. You've done two things here; firstly you've abandoned the notion that all human life should be treated equally. You've created a hierarchy of some people having a greater right to life than others.

    Secondly, you've introduced a rational for this, of which innocence is really undefined and lack of experience is a bit dubious as a reason. What is it exactly? Ignorance? Are children really innocent, or are they egocentric narcissists with little understanding of experience of others?

    Does this mean an idealistic 20-year old has a greater right to life to a Worldly 60-year old?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Secondly, you've introduced a rational for this, of which innocence is really undefined and lack of experience is a bit dubious as a reason. What is it exactly? Ignorance? Are children really innocent, or are they egocentric narcissists with little understanding of experience of others?

    Does this mean an idealistic 20-year old has a greater right to life to a Worldly 60-year old?

    The irony of this rational is that it's nearly the same argument for "lack of conciousness' that has been used to support the pro-choice argument.

    For both sides one's life rests on other's perceptions of their wisdom or lack thereof?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    The irony of this rational is that it's nearly the same argument for "lack of conciousness' that has been used to support the pro-choice argument.

    For both sides one's life rests on other's perceptions of their wisdom or lack thereof?
    Both the popular pro-Life and pro-choice positions are based upon the need to prove a fetus a person or not. I don't believe that either pursues this strategy because they are genuinely interested in discerning whether abortion is moral or not, but because the entire debate is concentrated on swaying public opinion with appeals to emotion. Truth, either way, is irrelevant.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Both the popular pro-Life and pro-choice positions are based upon the need to prove a fetus a person or not. I don't believe that either pursues this strategy because they are genuinely interested in discerning whether abortion is moral or not, but because the entire debate is concentrated on swaying public opinion with appeals to emotion. Truth, either way, is irrelevant.

    They both need to to this because it is hard to stomach that we might make the ending og human life accessible for E 400.

    It is not a nice thought.

    Incompatible compassions are hard to reconcile, maybe impossible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Thing is we do that sort of thing all the time. Government budgets are cut or reallocated and inevitably someone won't get the life-saving treatment they need. Or find themselves homeless and on the street. Military action is ordered and inevitably someone, often a bystander, will end up dead. An organ becomes available and some official determines who will receive it and who will not. Even when someone buys a stake in a supermarket, they'll not give it a second thought, though they might be horrified by the process by which it came to arrive on that shelf.

    None of these are nice thoughts, but they are often necessary. The reason that they can take place is that the average individual is shielded from the reality of them because most cannot get past the emotional perspective to be able to judge if they are necessary or not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Thing is we do that sort of thing all the time. Government budgets are cut or reallocated and inevitably someone won't get the life-saving treatment they need. Or find themselves homeless and on the street. Military action is ordered and inevitably someone, often a bystander, will end up dead. An organ becomes available and some official determines who will receive it and who will not. Even when someone buys a stake in a supermarket, they'll not give it a second thought, though they might be horrified by the process by which it came to arrive on that shelf.

    None of these are nice thoughts, but they are often necessary. The reason that they can take place is that the average individual is shielded from the reality of them because most cannot get past the emotional perspective to be able to judge if they are necessary or not.

    They can take place because they are not taboo.

    A mother ending her child's life is massively taboo.

    So it has to be either not a child (pro choice) or it can't happen at all (pro-life.) Or there better be a very damned good reason for it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    They can take place because they are not taboo.

    A mother ending her child's life is massively taboo.
    Actually, the main reason any of these things can happen is because we're happy not to acknowledge they happen - out of sight, out of mind - although I'd agree in the taboo effect in that once you can invoke images of cute little babies, it's a lot easier to get people wound up and incapable of rational discourse.

    There was a discussion somewhere here on life-saving treatment being withheld due to budget cuts and while you did get some hysterical posters, there were certainly more than you would find in a discussion on abortion. Had the life-saving treatment been withheld from a child - I suspect that would have been a different story.
    So it has to be either not a child (pro choice) or it can't happen at all (pro-life.) Or there better be a very damned good reason for it.
    There better be a very damned good reason for taking anyone's life, directly or otherwise, I would have thought. Either way, no one is bothering to debate whether there is because we can never get past the 'is it a person' question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli



    There was a discussion somewhere here on life-saving treatment being withheld due to budget cuts and while you did get some hysterical posters, there were certainly more than you would find in a discussion on abortion. Had the life-saving treatment been withheld from a child - I suspect that would have been a different story.

    This is a different thing altogether. I don't know what debate you are referencing here, but generally people get worked up about saving kids lives, because it is perverse for parents to outlive their children. Why do you think there is so much advertising playing on parents fears of safety etc. We know we are going to die, and we know we can't really control when or how, but we do want the natural certainty that we will not live to see our children die.
    There better be a very damned good reason for taking anyone's life, directly or otherwise, I would have thought. Either way, no one is bothering to debate whether there is because we can never get past the 'is it a person' question.

    The problem is when the state does it, either through war or through execution, it is quite a different debate to when it comes to the invididual.

    You have the context of the state/individual relationsship, the medical professional relationship, and the mother/child one. The relationship will determine how people assess the deeds.

    Agree with you about the stuck in the mud is it a life or not debate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    This is a different thing altogether. I don't know what debate you are referencing here, but generally people get worked up about saving kids lives, because it is perverse for parents to outlive their children. Why do you think there is so much advertising playing on parents fears of safety etc. We know we are going to die, and we know we can't really control when or how, but we do want the natural certainty that we will not live to see our children die.
    That's precisely what I'm referencing; the debate it framed in an emotional manner, focusing on children so that any rational discussion is impossible.
    The problem is when the state does it, either through war or through execution, it is quite a different debate to when it comes to the invididual.
    Not sure what you mean here. I agree that there are differences in how the someone emotionally detached from the question at hand is likely to determine whether something is right or wrong, but what we're doing, or attempting to do, here is determine that very question from a position of emotional detachment. Rationally.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    That's precisely what I'm referencing; the debate it framed in an emotional manner, focusing on children so that any rational discussion is impossible.

    People are not rational about their children. They dont want to die before their kids and that is just going to drive the whole debate.
    Not sure what you mean here. I agree that there are differences in how the someone emotionally detached from the question at hand is likely to determine whether something is right or wrong, but what we're doing, or attempting to do, here is determine that very question from a position of emotional detachment. Rationally.

    What?

    What I am going to say, I am unable to tell if it agrees with you or does not.

    We are not robots, regardless of how rational one thinks they are, decisions are ultimately emotionally driven at their bottom line.

    Compassion is the beginning of morality, which is why it is not cut and dried. Compassion for one often means no compassion for the other. Sometimes, as in abortion, they are so incompatible there is no universal principal that can be applied as far as I can see.

    Maybe someone else has a better answer to the conundrum.


Advertisement