Woman dies in Ireland for want of an abortion

[Zephie]

Weasling? You're just using technicalities of words to try to prove a point, words don't change what something is.

So, why are you still trying to argue that non-persons are persons because you say so?

A fetus is a stage of human development. To deny that is to deny being human.

A fetus is a stage of human development. This does not imply that it has rights. Because "being human" =/= "being a person".
Anyway, nice try at a "you're not human" argument.

So, after tautologies, weaseling, appeal to emotions, we are nearing the ad hominem now.

More and more cogency. Sure.

This has nothing to do about rights, it has to do about calling it what it is. Libs. try to dehumanize the child to justify killing it. Nothing more.

[The Calldari State]

A fetus is a stage of human development. To deny that is to deny being human.

Something in it's development stage does not necessarily equate it to the finished product.

A piece of sheet metal that will eventually become a car isn't a car. It's a piece of sheet metal, a frame with an engine and wheels is car.

Likewise, a fetus that's a few weeks into development is not the same as a late term pregnancy.

[Zephie]

A fetus is a stage of human development. To deny that is to deny being human.

Something in it's development stage does not necessarily equate it to the finished product.

A piece of sheet metal that will eventually become a car isn't a car. It's a piece of sheet metal, a frame with an engine and wheels is car.

Likewise, a fetus that's a few weeks into development is not the same as a late term pregnancy.

People aren't raw materials. We're talking about a fetus, which is well on its way to becoming an independent human being, not proteins floating in your body.

[The Calldari State]

People aren't raw materials. We're talking about a fetus, which is well on its way to becoming an independent human being, not proteins floating in your body.

Well the analogy may have been a bit off, but I'll chalk that up to me being half asleep.

The point still stands though. "Developing into a human being" and "Actually being a human being" are two very different things.

[Dyakovo]

So, why are you still trying to argue that non-persons are persons because you say so?


A fetus is a stage of human development. This does not imply that it has rights. Because "being human" =/= "being a person".
Anyway, nice try at a "you're not human" argument.

So, after tautologies, weaseling, appeal to emotions, we are nearing the ad hominem now.

More and more cogency. Sure.

This has nothing to do about rights, it has to do about calling it what it is. Libs. try to dehumanize the child to justify killing it. Nothing more.

If it is actually about calling a foetus what it is, why are you calling a foetus a person?

[Free South Califas]

Which means jack shit. No human has the right to force someone to house them in their body or take nutrients from their body without their permission.

How is a fetus supposed to get permission?

Also, it didn't ask to get where it is. The parents put it there when they had sex and gave it the materials to exist with.

Sure, "when they had sex". Or when he raped his daughter, if that's what happened. She didn't ask for the fetus, either. Unfortunately, the deed is done, and social policy has to deal with the extant reality regardless of your opinions about who put what where and why.

And Free South Califas, I totally meant to reply to you. My computer is a jerk, though)

Now, I would respond by pointing out that the rights to bodily integrity held by a fetus would themselves be violated by killing it, since that requires bodily alterations pretty universally.

I appreciate the response and the explanation of your computer circumstances

But, no. If you accept the right of bodily integrity, you accept that it can't go recursive, because that's what "integral" and "integrity" mean: the body is one unit, and all rights are reserved by the individual in control of that body except in emergencies, unusual circumstances etc. The living, breathing, integral human being has a right to bodily integrity. Any clump of human cells growing within it are subject to the decisions by the person hosting it. Once the fetus becomes a baby by being born, ze has the right of bodily integrity, though it's obviously limited by society according to the decision-making capacity of such a young person.

I'm sorry to ask this, but it's an important question in debates like these: Under what circumstances should the state force women to give birth, ideally? Why should the state force birth? If you want to add limits to abortion access, you may see it as simply a doctor marking a check box, but actually you are modifying a social relationship: the patient may easily be blackmailed, intimidated, exploited etc. due to the power given to the doctor and/or the state. So, given that unintended consequences of political decisions are inevitable on this scale, what of these unintended consequences do you foresee happening under your ideal abortion control policy, and how would you resolve them?

And?

It's the parents' fault, you can't kill the fetus for their mistake.

The impregnated one bears the brunt of the blame, in effect, regardless of your noble intentions. What if it was rape? That's not "the parents' fault", it's clearly the criminal's fault, and it must be the crime survivor's choice as to how to deal with the outcome.

Why do you think the state should force rape survivors to give birth, exactly?

I'm sorry, did you expect like to be rainbows and cake? Cry some more. The reason we do this is because the next of kin are considered to have the best interests of the victim in mind, and it usually works out that way.

So I'm a crybaby for protesting murder? Alright, alright. I should remember that first line of yours next time I see a leftist saying life's unfair for gays, see how that goes over.

Not all leftists are Condunum, and vice versa. There are a great many perspectives on a great many issues.

"Gasp! A horrible tragedy!? Quick! Politicise it!" - NSG in a nutshell.

This is a death caused by politics. Discussing the politics that led to the violence is not politicizing, it's the appropriate response, and necessary so that we can prevent future such deaths.

Even if restrictions on abortion would lower the abortion rate to 0, I would still be pro-choice.
In fact, it would make me more pro-choice. Abortions decrease the growth rate of overpopulation.

Good point.
That's an argument against pro-life though.
I am pro-choice.

Yes. They have aright ... even to their obscene, hateful opinions ...
How else are we going to evolve as a culture if we do not allow the bad opinions to interact with the good ones?

Democracy doesn't just mean free and fair elections. It also means that individuals in tough situations aren't forced into worse ones by society; after all, it is easily conceivable that 50%+1 would vote something into place that has devastating effects on the minority which prevent them from fully participating in civic life as a free person. There are non-electoral democratic institutions, like constitutions and supreme courts, which can and must be used to secure rights for minority groups (in this case I mean women who need or want abortions, specifically) and protect them from the decisions of the majority. Electoral freedom in and of itself is at most a useful--perhaps necessary--tool in creating, maintaining and strengthening democracy.

The topic makes it sound like she was stoned to death for wanting an abortion

No. "For want of..." clearly means "for lack of...", "because she lacked...", "because she wanted for..." (aka "needed"), not "because she wanted..."

You're the one who is making it sound like that, with that giant imagination of yours.

"for want of an abortion"
no
it's
"from being denied an abortion"

That's what "for want of an abortion" means in UK dialects of English. No need to impose cultural imperialism in NSG.

nope, "for want of" implies a lack or deficit. It's correct

Uh, no it's not. She didn't die because she wanted an abortion. She died because she couldn't get an abortion. A big difference.
This generation.

Your ageism has no bearing on your failure to comprehend the title.

Your "correction" and what was written mean the same thing.

No it doesn't.

If you would like some grammar lessons, I'd be happy to help you out.

Yes, it absolutely, completely does. Quit the threadjack; you've already been proven wrong. Your provincial attitude is adding nothing except embarrassment for yourself.

As for me, I need no grammar lessons, seeing as I'm a grammarian myself.

Because if you teach yourself, like you apparently did, you end up thinking "for want of" means "for wanting"...

The woman wanted an abortion. Want is a verb.

A verb you insist on not understanding.

[Risottia]

This has nothing to do about rights,

It has nothing to do with the right of getting an abortion if one wants so.
Sure.
Excuse me? What thread are you reading?

it has to do about calling it what it is.

Exactly. A fetus is a fetus. A person is a person. A human is a human. And they're not the same thing.

Libs. try to dehumanize the child to justify killing it. Nothing more.

Strawman. Who denied a human fetus is human?
It's not a person. Person =/= human. But you're being purposefully too thick, and call it a "technicality".

[Brassica Primes Cabbage Followers]

'Ireland's constitution states that the state may not endorse any particular religion and guarantees freedom of religion.' This contradicts the behaviour towards abortion and the laws established that mirror said behaviours. One law which enables a subjective observation to be the ultimate ruling.

Another person's bias should not dictate another's decisions.

Regardless, if anything, all this will probably do is provide pro-unionists with a scapegoat in their arguments and the feminists with something to utilize as their weekly "point of proof" that "there is a fourth patriarchal reich and everyone should mutilate their bodies in shame as they are the sole cause for it."

[Zephie]

This has nothing to do about rights, it has to do about calling it what it is. Libs. try to dehumanize the child to justify killing it. Nothing more.

If it is actually about calling a foetus what it is, why are you calling a foetus a person?

fetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult, as many words as you want to use, still a human. Not sure why people are so desperate to say underdeveloped humans aren't human. They surely aren't aliens.

[Stalinist Stalinism]

Not only is not having an abortion ban risky during pregnancy, back street abortions increase the rate of dying from the abortion by 250 times. IF you really cared about human life you'd legalise.

[Zephie]

Not only is not having an abortion ban risky during pregnancy, back street abortions increase the rate of dying from the abortion by 250 times. IF you really cared about human life you'd legalise.

Or you just wouldn't create life to destroy it.

[Dyakovo]

Something in it's development stage does not necessarily equate it to the finished product.

A piece of sheet metal that will eventually become a car isn't a car. It's a piece of sheet metal, a frame with an engine and wheels is car.

Likewise, a fetus that's a few weeks into development is not the same as a late term pregnancy.

People aren't raw materials. We're talking about a fetus, which is well on its way to becoming an independent human being, not proteins floating in your body.

[Zephie]

People aren't raw materials. We're talking about a fetus, which is well on its way to becoming an independent human being, not proteins floating in your body.

This is an acorn.

[Risottia]

a fetus, which is well on its way to becoming an independent human being

"well": weasely quantifier.

Anyway, I see you recognize it's not an independent human being yet. Hence it's not a human person yet: just a potential person. Potential => not actual. Hence, no rights. Hence, it can be killed lawfully.

For want of better words, I'm happy you finally agreed with me.

[The Calldari State]

Or you just wouldn't create life to destroy it.

If you want to be that abstract about it, you'll find creating things and then destroying them has been a connerstone of human history. This includes life.

[Zephie]

a fetus, which is well on its way to becoming an independent human being

"well": weasely quantifier.

Anyway, I see you recognize it's not an independent human being yet. Hence it's not a human person yet: just a potential person. Potential => not actual. Hence, no rights. Hence, it can be killed lawfully.

For want of better words, I'm happy you finally agreed with me.

infants aren't independent either, but they're outside of the womb. It doesn't make it OK to kill them.

[Agritum]

This is an acorn.

In the same way, a fetus is not an human being.

[The Calldari State]

This is an acorn.

In the same way, a fetus is not an human being.

Ladies and gentlemen we have a winner!

[Risottia]

Not sure why people are so desperate to say underdeveloped humans aren't human. They surely aren't aliens.

I don't know what would be the purpose of insisting on meaningless tautologies and abundant strawmen - if not a want of proper arguments.

[Zephie]

This is an acorn.

In the same way, a fetus is not an human being.

Holy crap, people come from acorns?
Let's say you plant it, a small tree begins growing. That tiny tree is still a tree. A fetus has human features. It's still a human, though a tiny one.

[Agritum]

In the same way, a fetus is not an human being.

Ladies and gentlemen we have a winner!

Is the gold medal made of chocolate?

[Risottia]

"well": weasely quantifier.

Anyway, I see you recognize it's not an independent human being yet. Hence it's not a human person yet: just a potential person. Potential => not actual. Hence, no rights. Hence, it can be killed lawfully.

For want of better words, I'm happy you finally agreed with me.

infants aren't independent either, but they're outside of the womb. It doesn't make it OK to kill them.

Because newborns are given legal personhood through legal fiction. Do try to keep up - at least read the wiki when discussing such stuff, just to have a general impression of the issue.

[Zephie]

infants aren't independent either, but they're outside of the womb. It doesn't make it OK to kill them.

Because newborns are given legal personhood through legal fiction. Do try to keep up - at least read the wiki when discussing such stuff, just to have a general impression of the issue.

the laws of man have nothing to do with this, you're trying to convince me fetuses are alien.

[The Calldari State]

the laws of man have nothing to do with this, you're trying to convince me fetuses are alien.

The "laws of men" have everything to do with matters concerning men. And you're the only one who's claimed fetuses are aliens.

[Zephie]

Sure it's not a big ass tree yet with bark around it, but it's still alive.