glassjester
Well-known member
So what? I am not aware of any of those complex tasks during sleep. Why should it be illegal to kill me during sleep? Like a fetus, I do not fear death or suffer during sleep.
Pro-life or Pro-choice
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
So what? I am not aware of any of those complex tasks during sleep. Why should it be illegal to kill me during sleep? Like a fetus, I do not fear death or suffer during sleep.
This is not pro-life. These scenarios, that is, are for abortion where the pro-life position or stance is not.
Rape and incest are both wrong.
Do you remember the commandments against these?
I do not know what the punishment for incest is. Rape is not always the same in how you are speaking of it as in how the Bible might speak of it, the commandments against adultery and the situation when the woman is already engaged to be married verses not engaged to be married. It is important to see and understand correctly, if you can read about these commandments. In the Bible, the Torah, a man and woman who are not engaged and have sex must get married, details in the text on when and what this situation is. I do not know if this or when the woman is engaged is considered rape, but if she is engaged and cried out I believe that the punishment is against the man. For these, engaged and not, the law may read about where this took place and if she cried out or not. A big wrench in this is consensual sex, which may imply the two are not married, but sex is only for marriage. As for incest and incest rape, I do not know what you are calling rape but it sounds like something more than just incest. Incest is wrong, and incest rape is wrong. For incest should those involved be punished some way? How does the law read? When it is incest rape what should happen? Marriage is not supposed to take place, so it is different in that respect from rape where the woman was engaged or not, where they were, and if she cried out. In my point of view, anything sexual that stands in the way of marriage how it should be is adultery and sin, though the commandment against it may not be one of the Ten Commandments, the specific commandment against adultery and what adultery is. It is kind of a spiritual way of looking at it, even different from spiritual adultery whatever that is. So, in the cases of rape, incest, and incest rape, we must look at how the law reads. But that is not a pro-abortion stance at all. It is a matter of punishment or consequence. With rape the couple may need to marry. There may be punishment more than just consequence. In these situations there may be the death penalty. I understand that for rape it may be that it was consensual sex, or what is an aggressor, if there was assault, etc....
If a child is born is more than if a pregnancy has occurred. Who is being punished, for what, what the penalty is, and if having a child makes someone immune to punishment contrary to the law, meaning if neither mother nor unborn child would be allowed to live. If her child is born by that time someone may argue that she now should be allowed to live, if she was previously seen as having fault of some kind. Saying unborn child may imply more than pregnancy to some, but a pregnancy involves an unborn child. The child along with the mother, may not be allowed to live. But punishment is not for the woman only, it is also for the man. What if the woman did nothing wrong, did everything right? She cried out, and no one saved her. Then what? If it is adultery, was it rape? An adulterer and an adulteress should not be allowed to live. I do not know the argument for letting an unborn child live, punishing father and or mother. I do not know if the woman lied to the man about being married or engaged, but he should not be in that situation.
Shalom.
Jacob
gcthomas
New member
[MENTION=7640]Town Heretic[/MENTION]
Ta for the detailed response. So many here just launch into am attack.
You say that we are born with certain rights - don't you think the wording is interesting here? "Born with" rights. Not a slam dunk, but indicitative of the constitutional view.
You say that no demands are needed for rights to be conferred, but rights can only be relied on as part of a social contract. Of you want to exercise a right you need the cooperation of others - you need them to grant that you have the rights. Society enforces the rights it thinks matches their idea of morality. And don't you think that if Chimps could speak and demand to be treated better then they would be awarded rights too?
Fœtuses have the same brain function as someone who had recently died. Organs function, but nobody is at home. We use brain function as the determinant of whether a person retains any rights. No brain function, not a person, no rights. How would apply this logic to a fœtus?
But of course, there is no logic that can be uniquely appealed to, because that way lies strict utilitarianism with rights granted according to economic value of individuals (sort of applies already listening to some of the libertarians get...)
No, abortion is a moral issue. Logic can be used but value judgements must be made. And that means there is room for divergent correct answers here, and we all have to respect the rightness of conclusions we disagree with. (Your conclusion is right, as is mine. Moral arguments are rarely able to give a single conclusion.)
Ta for the detailed response. So many here just launch into am attack.
You say that we are born with certain rights - don't you think the wording is interesting here? "Born with" rights. Not a slam dunk, but indicitative of the constitutional view.
You say that no demands are needed for rights to be conferred, but rights can only be relied on as part of a social contract. Of you want to exercise a right you need the cooperation of others - you need them to grant that you have the rights. Society enforces the rights it thinks matches their idea of morality. And don't you think that if Chimps could speak and demand to be treated better then they would be awarded rights too?
Fœtuses have the same brain function as someone who had recently died. Organs function, but nobody is at home. We use brain function as the determinant of whether a person retains any rights. No brain function, not a person, no rights. How would apply this logic to a fœtus?
But of course, there is no logic that can be uniquely appealed to, because that way lies strict utilitarianism with rights granted according to economic value of individuals (sort of applies already listening to some of the libertarians get...)
No, abortion is a moral issue. Logic can be used but value judgements must be made. And that means there is room for divergent correct answers here, and we all have to respect the rightness of conclusions we disagree with. (Your conclusion is right, as is mine. Moral arguments are rarely able to give a single conclusion.)
There's no need for that. I have the argument to advance. Anything else would only be a distraction.
It's the premise of agreement in our compact, the foundation that frames the conversation. We may restrain and focus or limit exercise, but we don't create within you the right to be.
A toddler, by way of easiest illustration, can't and needn't demand a thing to have the protections and guarantees of right.
For protection, to be sure.
Or, rights will not defend themselves.
Absolutely. At its best that enforcement follows a rational understanding of both right and obligation relating to it.
I think an ant would object to being stepped on, a leaf would lament the fall, and a bird would find his sky violated by shot and machinery. But it's a very different topic steeped in very different arguments.
If the degree of function mattered we'd assign right by it instead of increasing the obligation of those with a higher functioning in relation to those with less, and those with lower functioning would find themselves with less right, instead of more protection, which isn't the case.
Rather, we use brain functioning and essentially in potential to determine when someone who is artificially sustained will not return to the point of exercise absent that artificiality. A different animal. In fact, that potentiality in examination supports my idea.
A dangerous precedent to be sure and one we've rejected in premise, in our agreement about right and what our relationship to it must be.
All issues of right are necessarily moral issues as well. But the two aren't inherently in conflict. The issue here isn't abortion, but the right to exist and what our obligations are, rationally, in relation to it. That is, abortion as an artificial interruption of process is either an interruption of right or it is not. My argument remains an impediment to anyone who is of the "not" inclination. They must answer it if their claim is rational. If it is not it arises from the sort of premise they'd object to else.
Needn't be but will and can be. That is, a sociopath might understand the value of right, if only as it applies to his own preservation and freedom or the necessity of protecting it in others without essentially valuing the moral instrumentality of it.
Yes and no, respectively, if we are rational and understand the premise of our agreement. Change that premise and you lose far more.
No. I don't have to respect the proffer that violates the rule of reason within the compact's context that sustains our self-determination and collective struggle toward both intellectual and moral efficacy. I can appreciate a different context, but it cannot frame the conversation. And within the context I hold the high ground and repeat to any challengers the particulars of reason that will, or so far has been, met with side bar or silence.
Always a pleasure to talk to you though. :cheers:
Zeke
Well-known member
The term life is the real issue, if life can die then it's not really life in the true since of its Divine meaning which has no beginning or end. The law of this time capsule demands duality so no matter what issue is being debated the opposite will always be present to balance it out no matter how far it swings in favor of one over the other it will always center.
The conscience energy of belief is the driving force for both sides while partaking of the tree of good and evil, until unconditional love is excepted the dual in duality will rule in you're kingdom of fear where the mind is playing god/carrot and devil/stick.
No, but more are than most people who are opposed to abortions realize . There are some situations where the doctors have no choice but to perform an emergency abortion or neither the woman nor the baby will survive . C-sections will not work in every situation Better to save the life of the woman than cause both to die .
glassjester
Well-known member
Examples?
About five years ago in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, a young pregnant woman from India who had been living there with her husband for some time had a miscarriage .
This fetus was not viable , but the doctors refused to perform and emergency abortion to save her life . The result ? She spent three days dying in agony . If the doctors had performed an abortion, she would be alive today and could have had more children .
If she had been living in America or England, this would not have happened .
This fetus was not viable , but the doctors refused to perform and emergency abortion to save her life . The result ? She spent three days dying in agony . If the doctors had performed an abortion, she would be alive today and could have had more children .
If she had been living in America or England, this would not have happened .
glassjester
Well-known member
She had a miscarriage? So the baby was already dead?
So the baby was already dead?
Well, yeah, a dead baby is not going to suddenly come back to life...
You can't perform an abortion on a dead baby...
You can remove the dead baby from the body, but aborting an already dead baby just isn't possible.
A tragedy, certainly. But an abortion on a dead baby wasn't going to help her.
They should have removed the dead baby from the womb. But that's not an abortion.
Again, trying to kill a dead baby isn't exactly possible, it's already dead. Unless you think it's a zombie baby... Eeesh!
The woman should have asked to have them remove the dead baby from her womb, instead of asking for an abortion.
If she had been in America or England and asked for an abortion on her dead baby, instead of asking for them to remove the dead baby, she still probably would have died.
Nothing in Irish law prevented proper treatment in this case.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
WizardofOz
New member
[MENTION=10712]The Horn[/MENTION] - you're still dodging...Under what circumstance are you OK with human killing?
glassjester
Well-known member
[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] did a nice job explaining that one.
Any other examples?
gcthomas
New member
No, it wasn't.
The doctors refused to perform the termination of pregnancy because they could still hear its heartbeat. Savita died because of the state of the pregnancy, and the termination would have saved her. The fœtus was not going to live, but Irish law did not allow terminations under any circumstances.
That isn't true at all, Stripe. You should take more care in making such certain claims when you haven't checked. The Supreme Court had ruled that the law should be changed, but at the time of this lady's death the law was still in place. She died in 2012, and the law was changed the next year.
Nope, JR got it demonstrably and completely wrong.
Upshot: the ban on abortion killed this unfortunate woman. The death was caused be Christian pressure on the law makers to prevent abortions under any circumstances. The death was a scandal.
Nope.
The regulations in Ireland at the time allowed for abortion.
Sorry, it is you who is ill-informed.
There was a previous case in 1992 where the courts ruled that abortion was permissable.
Liberals leaped on the 2012 situation wailing about Ireland's "complete ban" on abortions and demonizing everyone from the doctors to the lawmakers when the fact was they had acted entirely appropriately, in the 2012 situation.
You can read about the 1992 case here: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1992/1.html
But you won't demonstrate anything. You'll just declare it so.
Nope.
Demonstrably untrue.
Liberals are just desperate to see as many babies murdered as possible.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
glassjester
Well-known member
So how was it a miscarriage?
How? What condition did she actually die of?
gcthomas
New member
No. No they didn't. See the case law you referenced below.
Crikey, Stripey. You have quoted another source you didn't bother to read.
Here is the start of your linked case:
| 1. This is an appeal brought by the defendants against an order made by Costello J. in the High Court on the 17 th February, 1992, which was made in these proceedings upon an application for an interlocutory injunction which by consent of the parties was treated as the hearing of the action. 2. The first defendant is a fourteen and a half year old girl and the second and third defendants are her parents. … 5. The Attorney General on the 7th February, 1992, having applied exparte to Costello J. in the High Court, obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the first defendant and the other defendants from leaving the country or from arranging or carrying out a termination of the pregnancy of the first defendant. At the time that order was ready to be served on the defendants they apparently had left this country and were in England arranging for the carrying out of the termination of the pregnancy. Upon being informed whilst there of the order which had been made by the court, they returned to this country. 6. The interim injunction was to last until the 10th February, 1992, or until further order made in the meantime. |
The family had taken the girl to England to procure abortion, and the high court issued an injunction to prevent them from travelling abroad and from procuring the abortion. The Supreme Court overturned the injunction, allowing them to go to England for the abortion. Abortions in Ireland remained unavailable due to the lack of clarity in the decision, an issue which was resolved only two decades later when the legal uncertainty was resolved with the passing of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. Until the law was passed no doctor could be sure any particular abortion was legal, so they were not offered.
Either you are a bit dim, Stripe, or you are willing to be economical with the actualité.
gcthomas
New member
My recollection is that she had premature cervical dilation and membrane rupture, which doomed the pregnancy and lead to sepsis risk. Miscarriage means a failure of the pregnancy, not specifically the death of the fœtus, although that was guaranteed.
There are no accepted clear local, national or international guidelines on the management of inevitable early second trimester miscarriage (i.e. less than 24 weeks) including the management of miscarriage where there is prolonged rupture of the membranes. The reason for the absence of such guidelines may be that clinical practice in other jurisdictions would have led to an early termination of pregnancy in equivalent clinical circumstances. It is recommended that such guidelines be developed for such patients as a matter of urgency and they should be explicit in the guidance given as to when one should offer termination based on symptoms and signs of infection implying increasing health risk to the mother which may even threaten her life.
We recognise that such guidelines must be consistent with applicable law and that the guidance so urged may require legal change.. The HSE panel reported on the woman's treatment:
| There are no accepted clear local, national or international guidelines on the management of inevitable early second trimester miscarriage (i.e. less than 24 weeks) including the management of miscarriage where there is prolonged rupture of the membranes. The reason for the absence of such guidelines may be that clinical practice in other jurisdictions would have led to an early termination of pregnancy in equivalent clinical circumstances. It is recommended that such guidelines be developed for such patients as a matter of urgency and they should be explicit in the guidance given as to when one should offer termination based on symptoms and signs of infection implying increasing health risk to the mother which may even threaten her life. We recognise that such guidelines must be consistent with applicable law and that the guidance so urged may require legal change. |
My emphasis.
The required legal change happened quite quickly, in 2013. An early termination would have likely saved the poor woman's life as part of the best practice for dealing with sceptic pregnancy.
glassjester
Well-known member
And killing the baby would have reversed the sepsis?