Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Article 6 didj, what does the phrase in article 6 refer to?

A child, which as he and I have both previously explained, is an undefined concept. For me, an early to mid stage fetus is not a child, therefore the whole fucking article is irrelevant.

Am I to take it by your insistence on this particular phrase that you believe an egg becomes a "child" at the moment of fertilisation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I agree completely and I don't mean to suggest that women would take this decision lightly, nor are they incubators, nor would there be exceptions in the law for rape/incest victims (despite how this could be reconciled with their "right to life"). However, of the estimated 85 000 abortions each year I can't imagine how many of these cases would be from rape/incest victims. Though statistics are hard to come by (and the use of RU 486 problematises this further), some stats suggest that abortion is a lifestyle choice articulated as a "mental health" issue for the mother. Though that sounds callous, speak to any mother who has carried a baby to full-term, whether unplanned, unwanted or otherwise and ask about their mental health having had the child. My feeling would be that the fear/emotional rollercoaster that is having children is a part of the process. Speak to mothers who have planned pregnancies and their experience is no different.

are you quoting from Tony Abbott's biography again?

"Every child has the inherent right to life" - how else do you interpret this statement Yossarianas?

And Circus Midget, are you macc4 - seriously?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Article 6 didj, what does the phrase in article 6 refer to?

It says a child has the right to life and as I stated in my previous post I strongly agree with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YossarianIsSane

A child, which as he and I have both previously explained, is an undefined concept. For me, an early to mid stage fetus is not a child, therefore the whole fucking article is irrelevant.

Am I to take it by your insistence on this particular phrase that you believe an egg becomes a "child" at the moment of fertilisation?

I didn't raise the issue of human rights. I was merely pointing out the inconsistency of talking about human rights to explain a "right to have an abortion" when the Convention on the Rights of the Child have given those rights to unborn children.

Which children have the "right to life" didj? If they intended for only children from 26 weeks to have this right, why wouldn't they say it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

when the Convention on the Rights of the Child have given those rights to unborn children.

Rubbish. It has not explicitly given rights to unborn children. It is silent on that. Notwithstanding that, it is open to jurisdictional interpretation. In some countries a child can be above 18 even though the Convention says a child is below 18. Using the convention to argue against abortion is flawed, because it wasn't the intention of the convention to do that, and because jurisdictional laws do not provide unchallengeable ethical frameworks. The convention is based on ethical principles but is not an absolute ethical framework. It is a quasi-normative agreement for common standards amongst UN members.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I didn't raise the issue of human rights. I was merely pointing out the inconsistency of talking about human rights to explain a "right to have an abortion" when the Convention on the Rights of the Child have given those rights to unborn children.

Which children have the "right to life" didj? If they intended for only children from 26 weeks to have this right, why wouldn't they say it?

You started the thread, which means you raised the issue of women's rights versus foetal rights, yet you keep ignoring those issues when pressed for answers but instead refer to a declaration that has nothing to do with the abortion debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Rubbish. It has not explicitly given rights to unborn children. It is silent on that. Notwithstanding that, it is open to jurisdictional interpretation. In some countries a child can be above 18 even though the Convention says a child is below 18. Using the convention to argue against abortion is flawed, because it wasn't the intention of the convention to do that, and because jurisdictional laws do not provide unchallengeable ethical frameworks. The convention is based on ethical principles but is not an absolute ethical framework. It is a quasi-normative agreement for common standards amongst UN members.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

You started the thread, which means you raised the issue of women's rights versus foetal rights, yet you keep ignoring those issues when pressed for answers but instead refer to a declaration that has nothing to do with the abortion debate.

Claude, this is worth a read, particularly if you are to maintain that the purpose of the convention was not to protect the rights of the unborn. The lack of a definitive clause protecting the rights of the unborn is not seen as a toleration of abortion.

http://www.amnestyforbabies.com/briefings/intl_law.pdf

You may question the valididty of human rights by suggesting that it's not binding in Australia given that it's a quasi-normative agreement, but you are wrong to suggest that it wasn't the intention of the Convention to protect the unborn. It was assumed from the outset.

And didj, I've never raised this as an issue of women's rights versus foetal rights. For you to make this point, you've had to re-define what it is to be a "living human-being" in order to assert women's rights over life in general. There is not a definition of human life which is based upon the acquisition of consciousness, this is yours and others' opinion. But, if you want to speak of human rights then you'll see that there's not a convention which provides women the right to an abortion and in fact, that there's a convention which protects the rights of unborn children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I'm not trying to pick flaws in your approaches I'm trying to understand your point of view. I've stated what I think constitutes a living being and I don't know if that's changed at all. See post #21.

Your comments on post #1 bear no answer to the question of at which stage of prenatal development you consider life to commence. A link to a massive Wikipedia page isn't really an answer. Incidentally, that very pages states "Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not". I've never heard of a self-sustaining foetus. You?

What's your stance on emergency contraception (aka morning after pill, etc), given that conception can take place in less than an hour after intercourse? Should this be banned?

edit: ffs, a busy week at work and I see I'm wayyy behind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

An ethical position that distinguishes living human beings from living things.

Yet links to Wikipedia page for all living things when asked to define human life.

Fewsion - Do you believe people should be able to undertake IVF?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Claude, this is worth a read, particularly if you are to maintain that the purpose of the convention was not to protect the rights of the unborn. The lack of a definitive clause protecting the rights of the unborn is not seen as a toleration of abortion.

http://www.amnestyforbabies.com/briefings/intl_law.pdf

You may question the valididty of human rights by suggesting that it's not binding in Australia given that it's a quasi-normative agreement, but you are wrong to suggest that it wasn't the intention of the Convention to protect the unborn. It was assumed from the outset.

Firstly, I'm talking about ethics not law. There are many laws in this country which are unethical in my view.

Secondly, I'm not questioning the validity of human rights I'm demonstrating that the definition of a child in the declaration is flexible. There is no strong argument that it is intended to include the unborn.

Secondly, The rights of the unborn were not assumed at the outset. Whatever was negotiated or discussed to placate conservative members of the UN, there clearly was not a unanimous agreement to include the unborn as specific intent or it would be in the convention (which was sought by those conservative countries as referenced in the paper you reference but obviously not agreed to, which actually undermines the contention of the author). The absence of a specific reference is a typical UN compromise. Assumptions in international treaties are never tacit. That paper is highly selective in its quoting. For example, it does not refer to the first article of the Declaration of Human Rights which clearly refers to the rights of humans who are born. That paper is just a biased argument.

Abortions will occur whether they are legal or not. If you are in favor of banning abortions, you are also in favor of putting women's lives in danger by forcing them to resort to unsafe measures to abort foetuses they cannot care for. The rest is irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi

Abortions will occur whether they are legal or not. If you are in favor of banning abortions, you are also in favor of putting women's lives in danger by forcing them to resort to unsafe measures to abort foetuses they cannot care for. The rest is irrelevant.

Exactly, if you regard the foetus as not having rights and not exposed to suffering, abortion is ethical.

If you regard the foetus as having rights and that it may suffer, you have an ethical dilemma, because the reality is illegal and unsafe abortions, in which the foetus and the mother are more likely to suffer, will occur. So it becomes clear that the more ethical choice is for society to allow abortions to occur.

... yep, so we need to ban the Catholic Church, not abortions.

Again Derek, this has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. If you can't see past that bias then you can't meaningfully contribute.

Claude, given that you think that there is no strong argument in defence of the unborn with respect to human rights, could you explain how you understand article 6 of the CRC?

If you believe that it is ethical to allow abortions on the basis that illegal abortions will increase if abortion is criminalised then you need to revise what limited data is available regarding abortions: http://www.humanrightsforunbornchild.../facts/24.html (Please point me in the direction of other stats you may have access to or found). The absolute majority of abortions are carried out legally to protect the mental-health of the mother; there is no suggestion that women who would have this right taken away would resort to illegal abortions (or that all institutions providing abortions would cease operating despite the criminalisation).

If you present an "ends justifies the means" argument to advocate women's right to an abortion, then you should follow that conclusion to its end. The ends should only justify the means if the former is more desirable than the latter, and so, if criminalising abortion saved more children from being aborted than were illegally aborted, then the ethical dilemma is solved. The greatest good for the greatest number.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

If you present an "ends justifies the means" argument to advocate women's right to an abortion, then you should follow that conclusion to its end. The ends should only justify the means if the former is more desirable than the latter, and so, if criminalising abortion saved more children from being aborted than were illegally aborted, then the ethical dilemma is solved. The greatest good for the greatest number.

Those are all ifs based on your subjective moral calculation which isn't going to be the same as someone who thinks the opposite. Why should your moral calculation be given more weight than another type of moral calculation?

There is no way to answer that question in an objectively holistic way.

I'm not suggesting it should. I suppose though that criminalising abortion would not be the sole element of reform and that there would be a range of services provided to support mothers, at a significant cost to the government, but at the same time the benefits of an extra 100 000 children born each year would probably be worth it economically.

Not really. Those 100,000 unwanted kids would be born to mothers who would be less able to raise them properly.

Here is that difference of opinion that Geezah mentioned. Your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

1. I'm not suggesting it should.

2. I suppose though that criminalising abortion would not be the sole element of reform and that there would be a range of services provided to support mothers, at a significant cost to the government, but at the same time the benefits of an extra 100 000 children born each year would probably be worth it economically.

1. You said before you favour making abortion illegal. I assume you base that on your moral principles, which is your right, but making it illegal is all about making a moral principle a universal law that other people do not subscribe to. As murky a subject as this is, those who favour legalised abortion aren't necessarily pro-death, or anti-life, they are just pro-choice and pro-reality.

That abortion is legal, hence safe, does not mean that society is encouraging women to have abortions: it just means that it is an option that provides a better health outcome for women who really do no want to take a pregnancy to full-term; it also doesn't mean that those who are anti legalised abortion have to ever be part of a process that does not conform to their morals and beliefs.

Making it illegal though, does make those who have a different way of calculating their moral, ethical, and belief frameworks, conform to those, like you, who share a different set of guiding principles (on this issue).

2. You are assuming that making abortion illegal would mean that no abortions would take place and result in an extra 100k of children being born. You are also assuming that of those foetuses which aren't aborted (illegally) will be born into a family structure that would allow them to become economically beneficial in the future. There is no way of knowing that due to too many variations in birth situational outcomes. You are also assuming, that even if all current abortions were converted into an equal number of births, that this would actually mean that there is an extra 100k children. It could conceivably lead to less children being born if women are conceiving at an age which causes greater financial insecurity leading them to have less overall children than they otherwise might if they had their first child at a more financially advantageous stage in their life.

Fewsion are you willing to adopt the children women would be forced to have under your system, pay for their medical expenses, pay compensation to the families of any woman who died or received permanent injury as a result of being forced to go through labor, pay for any other expenses associated with pregnancy and the health issues surrounding it?

If not just shut the fuck up. No woman should have to pay for you to be able to practice your religious beliefs.

I agree with Griggle

fewsion should go preach on the christian dubstep forums

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

And didj, I've never raised this as an issue of women's rights versus foetal rights. For you to make this point, you've had to re-define what it is to be a "living human-being" in order to assert women's rights over life in general. There is not a definition of human life which is based upon the acquisition of consciousness, this is yours and others' opinion. But, if you want to speak of human rights then you'll see that there's not a convention which provides women the right to an abortion and in fact, that there's a convention which protects the rights of unborn children.

There is no point in even having this discussion with you. You started a thread about abortion, yet you do not even recognise that women's rights versus fetal rights is at the very core of the debate, and now you are just repeating space cadet delusional garbage over and over again like a broken down record

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

1. You said before you favour making abortion illegal. I assume you base that on your moral principles, which is your right, but making it illegal is all about making a moral principle a universal law that other people do not subscribe to. As murky a subject as this is, those who favour legalised abortion aren't necessarily pro-death, or anti-life, they are just pro-choice and pro-reality.

That abortion is legal, hence safe, does not mean that society is encouraging women to have abortions: it just means that it is an option that provides a better health outcome for women who really do no want to take a pregnancy to full-term; it also doesn't mean that those who are anti legalised abortion have to ever be part of a process that does not conform to their morals and beliefs.

Making it illegal though, does make those who have a different way of calculating their moral, ethical, and belief frameworks, conform to those, like you, who share a different set of guiding principles (on this issue).

2. You are assuming that making abortion illegal would mean that no abortions would take place and result in an extra 100k of children being born. You are also assuming that of those foetuses which aren't aborted (illegally) will be born into a family structure that would allow them to become economically beneficial in the future. There is no way of knowing that due to too many variations in birth situational outcomes. You are also assuming, that even if all current abortions were converted into an equal number of births, that this would actually mean that there is an extra 100k children. It could conceivably lead to less children being born if women are conceiving at an age which causes greater financial insecurity leading them to have less overall children than they otherwise might had they had their first child at a more financially advantageous stage of their life.

1. That's unfair. I've not suggested that people who believe in the right of women to have an abortion are "pro-death" or "anti-life", rather, that you can only justify abortion by re-defining what "human life" is or by prioritising the rights of mothers over their unborn children. Secondly, I have not suggested that the legalisation of abortion encourages women to have abortions; I don't believe that women take the decision lightly or use abortion as a contraceptive, but that abortions for "mental-health" reasons suggest that enough is not being done to offer support to pregnant mothers or to offer them alternative choices to abortion.

2. I accounted for this. I said that I believed criminalisation would not stop all institutions offering abortions despite criminalisation. And I've acknowledged that there's no way of knowing after your post and we moved on right? It all came down to the subjective interpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

Fewsion are you willing to adopt the children women would be forced to have under your system, pay for their medical expenses, pay compensation to the families of any woman who died or received permanent injury as a result of being forced to go through labor, pay for any other expenses associated with pregnancy and the health issues surrounding it?

If not just shut the fuck up. No woman should have to pay for you to be able to practice your religious beliefs.

Yes Griggle, thanks for your insight once more.

So that's a no then?

You don't think the Church should pay for religious observances that you form lobby groups to force on the general public even if they aren't followers of your religion?

Seriously, either you guys can start footing the bills for your social policies, start actually paying taxes or just fuck off. As your religion doesn't pay tax, they should have no say in how our society is run.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

1. That's unfair. I've not suggested that people who believe in the right of women to have an abortion are "pro-death" or "anti-life", rather, that you can only justify abortion by re-defining what "human life" is or by prioritising the rights of mothers over their unborn children. Secondly, I have not suggested that the legalisation of abortion encourages women to have abortions; I don't believe that women take the decision lightly or use abortion as a contraceptive, but that abortions for "mental-health" reasons suggest that enough is not being done to offer support to pregnant mothers or to offer them alternative choices to abortion.

2. I accounted for this. I said that I believed criminalisation would not stop all institutions offering abortions despite criminalisation. And I've acknowledged that there's no way of knowing after your post and we moved on right? It all came down to the subjective interpretation.

1. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you personally were saying that, it was more about clarification of the opposing position.

You have avoided though the concept that you, and those people like you who want to make abortion illegal, would like to impose your moral principles on those who have a contradistinctive way of reasonaing what isn't a black and white issue. Even if we all agreed the definition of human life means from conception until death, and I suspect most people would agree with this to varying degrees, you will not resolve the issue of a woman's right to choose over the foetus's right to continue to exist.

2. And do you agree that you can't automatically assume that converting all current abortions into births will necessarily mean that there is going to be a a net gain overall of 100k? Nor that those who will be born will necessarily be an economic benefit to society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

1. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you personally were saying that, it was more about clarification of the opposing position.

You have avoided though the concept that you, and those people like you who want to make abortion illegal, would like to impose your moral principles on those who have a contradistinctive way of reasonaing what isn't a black and white issue. Even if we all agreed the definition of human life means from conception until death, and I suspect most people would agree with this to varying degrees, you will not resolve the issue of a woman's right to choose over the foetus's right to continue to exist.

2. And do you agree that you can't automatically assume that converting all current abortions into births will necessarily mean that there is going to be a a net gain overall of 100k? Nor that those who will be born will necessarily be an economic benefit to society.

1. That's precisely the point of contention though; that right for a woman to choose to terminate a life. The question then divides into two camps then doesn't it, whether to believe that an embryo is a life, or if it is undoubtedly, that a woman has the right to make that choice.

2. Completely, it was a crude and exaggerated hypothetical; it wasn't meant to be taken as what I think would actually happen.

Actually geezah, a few pages back fewsion said that it doesn't matter what you believe because "law is not a unanimous decision". So according to him, as long as it's the law, it's ok to violate someone else's human rights. Following this logic, we could introduce a law say for example, that would allow torture as a form of capital punishment. It wouldn't matter if you opposed that law on moral/ethical grounds however, because he says its not a human rights issue, its a legal one.

Poor fewsion, can't comprehend that the introduction of a law which impinges on the human rights of women, is actually a human rights issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Actually geezah, a few pages back fewsion said that it doesn't matter what you believe because "law is not a unanimous decision". So according to him, as long as it's the law, it's ok to violate someone else's human rights. Following this logic, we could introduce a law say for example, that would allow torture as a form of capital punishment. It wouldn't matter if you opposed that law on moral/ethical grounds however, because he says its not a human rights issue, its a legal one.

Poor fewsion, can't comprehend that the introduction of a law which impinges on the human rights of women, is actually a human rights issue.

Didj I thought you said you wouldn't bother discussing it? If you think I'm repeating "space cadet delusional garbage" by asking you to explain your views on the human rights of the unborn as defined by several UN conventions, then I agree, you don't have anything to discuss. Just don't blame it on me.

Tonight on SBS there was an interesting doco on Alan Turing. He was chemically castrated and subsequently killed himself all because he was gay and that was outlawed in Britain at the time. Hey who cares about human rights when you can just make a law? Perhaps we should go back to the 50s and re-introduce all kinds of laws which violate people's human rights and civil liberties. Oh even better, we could go back to the dark ages and introduce a law which makes it illegal to practice religions which we don't like. We could bring back the death penalty and burn people at the stake. It doesn't matter what you believe, because after all, the law is the law!

Have you cracked it Didje?

This is a stupid argument that completely and totally denies the reality of the situation, women will have abortions regardless of whether they are legal or not, women should not EVER be made to carry a child to term against their will. The best way to ensure the best possible outcome for the mother is to make abortion legal and as safe as possible.
Laws are in place in regard to how an abortion can be obtained and up to what date it is acceptable to do so, these laws are around protecting the childs right to life/live etc etc as you mentioned earlier Fewsion.

I dont believe that undertaking an abortion is a lifestyle choice, nor a choice that anyone would ever, happily or friviously make.

Why would you think it ethical/moral or acceptable in ANYWAY to force a woman to carry a child to term Fewsion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Tonight on SBS there was an interesting doco on Alan Turing. He was chemically castrated and subsequently killed himself all because he was gay and that was outlawed in Britain at the time. Hey who cares about human rights when you can just make a law? Perhaps we should go back to the 50s and re-introduce all kinds of laws which violate people's human rights and civil liberties. Oh even better, we could go back to the dark ages and introduce a law which makes it illegal to practice religions which we don't like. We could bring back the death penalty and burn people at the stake. It doesn't matter what you believe, because after all, the law is the law!

Great story. You've stopped making sense several posts ago given that you're unable to explain how human rights apply to the unborn.

Smorchika, if evidence were to come to light that abortion of an early term pregnancy causes the embryo significant distress, or that embryos were conscious do you suppose that such rights would remain?

hello hello hello
discussing anything with fewsion is pointless because he will ignore your good points and reiterate his long discredited points ad nauseum.
I'll give this thread a rest for a couple of days because I can see irritability setting in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Smorchika, if evidence were to come to light that abortion of an early term pregnancy causes the embryo significant distress, or that embryos were conscious do you suppose that such rights would remain?

As ridiculous as the idea of embryos experiencing consciousness or distress on a human level is, if that were the case I'm sure the wonder of medical science could put them to sleep before they are scraped out.

Besides it's part of the woman's body, she gets to decide what happens.