The abortion bill… April 18, 2012
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, Social Policy.trackback
Here’s a thought on foot of today and tomorrow’s events. The list of those voting will be most interesting, as will the names of those who don’t turn up in the Chamber. It will also be useful to match that against votes subsequent to any attempt to introduce legislation on foot of the report released later this year.
Of course the Labour Party has headed off some of the implications of the above by not allowing a free vote, though will any members of the LP break ranks. As interesting will be others from other parties.
RTÉ reports the following:
Speaking after a silent pro-life protest at the Dáil, Caroline Simons of the Pro-life movement said tonight’s private members bill is not about medical treatment for women but about providing for abortion throughout pregnancy.
She said doctors have practiced with no diffculty for the last 20 years since the ‘X-case’ without abortion in Ireland and the UN accepts this country is the safest in the world to have a baby.
That last is often voiced in the debates on the issue, but it seems to me to be something of a diversion and not entirely relevant to the debate, not least when one considers the situation that faced these women.
The simplification that seems to operate in relation to this issue does no one any service at all.
I’d be surprised if any Labour members break the whip on this issue. The TDs who have been most vocal on this issue have been clear that they’ll vote against the legislation. Even Anne Ferris, who took the time to speak at an Action on X meeting in Dublin said she was in favour of legislation but would vote with the Government. It doesn’t seem to be an issue that matters that much to them.
In relation to Caroline Simons, the idea that doctors have operated with “no difficulty” since the X Case is nonsense. Women in those circumstances are still forced to travel. It is unfortunate that even if this legislation were passed, or the Expert Group recommends similar legislation, it won’t help women like those in Kathy Sheridan’s article.
The notion that Ireland is the safest place to have a baby is a myth. Wendy Lyon wrote this on it a while back. It’s long but I’d recommend reading it.
http://www.choiceireland.org/content/abortion-laws-and-maternal-mortality-rates-deconstructing-anti-choice-spin
It’s interesting to consider who will vote for the Bill.
That’s very true re the point that even if the bill is passed there would be no substantive change for those women.
Re ‘safest place’, it’s always dangerous to argue from the individual but I’ve direct personal experience that contradicts Simons assertion. I’d be deeply sceptical about the claims she makes.
One line in Wendy’s piece really stands out…
They have certain mantras that slip into every public comment they make – regardless of whether it makes sense in the context or, indeed, whether it makes sense at all.
Simons to a tee.
I make it a point of principle not to give a flying fuck what Caroline Simmons thinks about any subject.
As for the vote, at the moment it seems unlikely that even a single Labour TD will have the courage to vote for the legislation, with the exception perhaps of some of those who have already lost the whip. Anne Ferris and Ciara Conway, the only Labour TDs who signed up to support Action on X have already made it pretty clear that they will be voting for continued inaction on X. This will be the first time most Labour TDs will have had a vote on the abortion issue, and the cynic in me suspects that it may well be the last time for some of them. What a legacy for these useless liberals.
At the moment I’m expecting that pro-life Pearse will toe the SF party line and vote in favour.
Pearse Doherty’s father’s funeral was today so he won’t be there at all.
I’m sorry to hear that.
+1
Is the timing of this a coincodence or has the SP introduced this bill now in order to put the abortion issue back on the media radar in the run up to the referendum on the Austerity Treaty? Clearly the Austerity Treaty has noting whatsoever to do with abprtion, but such a fact never stopped the anti-abortion crowd from campaigning against previous EU treaties either. Or am I being too cynical here?
You are being too cynical here. Bordering on tin foil hat paranoid in fact!
This bill was in preparation long before the austerity referendum was announced. And the timing was based on the 20th anniversary of the X case – that’s when the process formally started in the Dail, even though it’s only up for debate today. The 20th anniversary gave pro-choice campaigners a hook to hang the issue on, which is to say the disgraceful way in which FF, FG, Labour, Democratic Left and the Greens kept kicking the issue into the long grass for years.
It’s been a long day!
Good to see the bill being introduced, whatever about the chances of it being voted through.
Fair enough.
Just thinking about your point though, the last thing the Socialist Party or the rest of the socialist left want in the Austerity Referendum is for the likes of Coir to get extra traction or coverage. The unanimously pro-Yes media will already be trying to give them unwarranted amounts of attention so as to portray the No side as crazies.
You’re correct about them appearing as crazies, but you know, a No vote is a No vote at the end of the day. I agree that they shouldn’t be encouraged all the same.
Still, I’d wonder about the collateral damage they inflict. The media and orthodoxy will be very keen to point to them as Mark P says. Problem is there’s no way around it. They’re there and they’re not going to go away.
Well true, but that’s a media-centric way of looking at it. On the ground they mobilise a fair number of voters to come out and cast their ballot. For every level-headed IT reader within the orthodoxy who sees them as crazies there’s probably a couple fo Alive! reading fanatics who follow the call and do their bit to keep Ireland safe for the faith. As you say, they’re there, what can you do other than ignore them and hope they’ll eventiually die off, and of course legislate despite them.
I think the Cóir posters last time out in Lisbon definitely did more harm than good for what its worth, based on reaction from the doors
I think that you are exaggerating their mobilising capacity, LATC. Coir simply don’t have that much organisation or traction, and most of those backwoodsmen who do vote No for ultra-conservative reasons would do so without them.
Their primary role (like the couple of conspiranoids who put out a leaflet last time out talking about conscription) is to allow our elite to portray themselves as sensible and even progressive while tarring the main No campaign with the craziness of irrelevant oddballs.
I wasn’t talking about Coir specifically, I meant the general “they” of grassroots religiously inclined arch-traditionalists, just to be clear, who come out of the cracks to raise abortion as an electoral issue even when it isn’t (which is always of course).
This is beyond belief. Around 15 TDs are currently in the Dail for the debate. Not one Labour TD has had the bottle to even show their face so far.
Most SF TDs are missing too.
According to twitter, Kathleen Lynch has now shown her face. It will be interesting to see if she actually speaks.
One FF, one SF, the Minister and possibly 2 gov present for the tech group statements.Which we’re all very good. Reilly was suddenly surrounded by colleagues for his turn.
Rare atmosphere of humility in the chamber. Whiter most of it was awareness of successive governments failing women in this state is another matter.
Worth a look back at the record on this and the welfare debate after. Usually high standard of contributions in both
* unusually
obviously
More Labour hacks there now. So far Ciara Conway, Kathleen Lynch and Anne Ferris have all given the “we need to legislate but I’m voting against legislation” speech of shame.
I can only hope it haunts them till the day the die.
Just to confirm, the actual vote on the bill is due to take place around tomorrow lunchtime?
That’s my understanding of it.
A 2010 Labour Party Leaflet “It’s Time to Legislate for the X-Case”
http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/its-time-to-legislate-for-the-x-case-leaflet-from-labour-2010/
Thanks for that, I suppose, although you have left me spitting bile down the sink.
Spineless and cynical as the Labour Party position is (there’s no need for another review group on this – there’s already been a report on the issue, but no government party had the courage to proceed with it) there’s a part of me that’s glad, in a way, that Labour isn’t allowing a free vote.
To allow a free vote on this issue, as some within Labour seem to have wanted, is something of a cop-out: the old argument that abortion is a matter of individual conscience, and not something on which it’s appropriate to impose a party whip. Why, though, should abortion be a matter of conscience for legislators, but not cuts to health and education services? Reproductive rights are intensely political, just as provision of social services is a matter of morality as much as policy.
It will be fascinating to see how Ivana Bacik spins this one. She has defended the indefensible so far; she’ll hardly stop now.
Oh God, I’d forgotten about her. I suspect she’ll keep her trap shut until the whole issue is off the agenda again.
Is this issue not dead now for Labour for at least a generation? Whenever a Labour politician raises their position in abortion their opposition to this bill can be thrown back at them, along with their inertia on this over the past 20 years. Bacik is probably happy enough with things as they are, comfort and tranquillity reign and their identities as ‘liberals’ are as secure as ever, in their own minds at least, which is what matters to them.
Absolutely nothing unusual about the chamber being mostly empty during Private Members’ Time. It’s typically only the party proposing the bill/motion whose members turn up for the debate in any large numbers.
I was extremely impressed with Clare Daly’s speech, particularly her defence of the range of valid reasons for women to choose abortion and her linking the issue to the cuts in Lone Parents’ Allowance. The only one thing I would have picked her up on was saying that abortion doesn’t happen in Ireland – it does, with the use of pills ordered over the internet (something Olivia Mitchell of all people referred to) and traditional methods used by immigrant communities. That’s possibly a minor point but one worth making.
Labour, who have never used their time in government to do a thing about abortion, have now invented a fiction that they’re opposing the bill because it “doesn’t go far enough”. Even their supporters in the Gallery were rolling their eyes at that one.
Whats the rush to murder babies, its no surprise that a three month baby was murdered by a male adult havent we showed him its Ok to murder a defenceless baby whats wrong with people.
I know this is probably a stupid question but how much further are Labour claiming the bill could have gone?
That’s an excellent question. Anyone know the answer?
It’s the classic Labour Party thing of wanting to be judged on your intentions rather than your actions. Thus it won’t really matter to the likes of Bacik or Lynch that they’ve voted against Clare Daly’s bill because, in their own minds, they’re the kind of people who would vote for this kind of bill. Their situation is in a way analogous to the likes of Haughey speechifying about the importance of family values while sowing their wild oats in private life.
I actually find the attitude of someone like Caroline Simons or indeed the anti-abortion contributor on this thread to be greatly preferable to that of cynics who will no doubt be proclaiming their liberalism and feminism the next time it doesn’t make any difference to their political fortunes. Labour Party supporters who’ll have no problem with their party’s vote on this would be the first to tut tut at the ‘troglodytic’ attitude of someone like Rick Santorum though the state we live in actually has a more restrictive attitude towards abortion than the most conservative US state.
Even by the cynical standards of Irish politics this is a shameful episode. And fair play to Clare Daly for forcing Labour out into the open.
Thirty odd years ago Noel Browne brought in a bill to decriminalise homosexuality and couldn’t even get a seconder. Back then you also had Labour TDs who talked a good game until it came to the vote.
Their extreme cowardice isn’t even pragmatically justifiable because the pro-life lobby aren’t a significant force anymore though I’m sure Labour will, anonymously, brief sympathetic journalists that their position on this vote has something to do with ‘avoiding a repeat of the divisive referendums of the eighties.’
I found Ciara Connery’s contribution particularly appalling. If you’re going to vote against the bill then going on about your personal story and expecting sympathy is nothing but Liveline variety narcissism.
Ciara Conway, not Ciara Connery.
Reblogged this on Tomás Ó Flatharta and commented:
Clare Daly, Joan Collins, Mick Wallace, Congtatulations.
Labour Party pro choice campaigners, many of whom campaigned with courage on this issue since the infamous 1992 X Case, need to reflect on the price they are paying for coalition with Fine Gael.
The thing about Labour is that every time they make a decision I imagine someone in a backroom somewhere using the phrase, “Are we covered on this,” and congratulating themselves on another masterpiece of Machiavellian ingenuity. Said genius will in a few years time be shaking their head at the perfidy of the electorate when Labour get the usual post coalition trouncing. One reason why Labour TDs should break ranks today is that they probably won’t ever have the chance to vote on this issue again given that at least half of them won’t be in the next Dail.
Contributors here will know that I am totally opposed to abortion, so would therefore be opposed to Clare Daly’s Bill however I think that it shows up a greater problem in Irish Politics where people like Bacik etc, make a career out of saying one thing and then doing the complete opposite.
Eamonnncork
“I actually find the attitude of someone like Caroline Simons or indeed the anti-abortion contributor on this thread to be greatly preferable”,
In my view give me a person who states their position on any issue and holds onto it regardless of the outcome or popularity than those who run with the hare and hunt with the fox of which we seem to have an abundance of in Ireland.
Also can someone explain to me how the issue of abortion and left positions generally became so intertwined, and is it because of people like Bacik et al, who use left rhetoric to achieve positions of power and influence and really don’t give a damn about society as long as they are supping at the trough.
“Also can someone explain to me how the issue of abortion and left positions generally became so intertwined”
Through the “new left” thinking of the late 60s, identity politics growing in importance alongside purely economic class politics, women’s liberation, struggles against repression and exploitation of women in patriarchal society, that kind of thing.
but LATC surely its not necessary to support abortion in order to advocate economic class politics why can one not advocate one without the other?
You can advocate what you like Ghandi, I’m simply answering your question of how they came together through the expansion of struggles arising from the late 60s wave of New Left activity.
Couldn’t it also be argued that in the specifically Irish context a situation whereby women need to travel to another country for an abortion discriminates against women from poorer backgrounds who’ll have more difficulty finding the money for air fares and accommodation as well as the abortion itself.
That could indeed be argued. But what’s the point in arguing about abortion with pro-lifers, there is no middle ground, it’s a black and white issue for them, murder plain and simple. Arguments about the right to choose and economic discrimination are just water off a duck’s back, waste of time discussing it with them.
It goes back further than that. The Communist Manifesto has a section responding to critics of its policies on ‘free love’ (the abolition of marriage etc.) leading to the great line: ‘There has always been free love, hitherto it has been the sole preserve of the bourgeoisie.’
One of the first policies implemented by the New Soviet Union was no-fault, ‘easy’, divorce and, I believe, access to abortions for all women.
Pretty sure Rosa Luxembourg had stuff on this.
Better not let FG/Lab hear about “free love” or they’ll tax it,
Jeez, have none of you read Engels (capitalism depends on women’s subjugation and unpaid labour in the home)? The right to abortion is a left issue because compulsory pregnancy is an instrument of that subjugation.
There’s also the rather important left issue of control of the means of production. Reproduction is a type of production.
@LATC Is that one of the dangers of identity politics? There seems to be a strand of the pro-choice movement which argues that as long as middle class women can have abortions, there is nothing much to worry about in the state of the nation. A purely pro-choice position, with no class element, is perfectly compatible with membership of FG, say, never mind Labour.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am pro-choice myself.
Michael, I wasn’t lauding identity poitics as being preferable to class politics, I was merely attempting to explain to Ghandi how the struggles of the late 60s onwards in Western Europe widened to include issues beyind economics. I think you’re absolutely correct in identifying the potential dangers in prioritising identity politics over class politics from a Left perspective, that the former might substitute for the latter. I don’t see any problem in embracing both sets of struggle, provided there’s no loss of clarity that class politics retains dominance, as a superset of the other. Maybe dominance is not the right word to use, in this context, but you know what I mean hopefully.
I’m not disagreeing with what you might have been interpreted as saying, just opening another line of thought.
How about `hegemony’ rather than `dominance’?
Michael, apologies for coming back to this a week later for a start. I’m not sure hegemony is right either. Maybe primacy.
Anyway I was reminded to come back to comment after watching this video of John Pilger speaking at the Marxism 2012 conference in Melbourne.
It fits in with the dicsussion we were having, in that he attacks identity politics as a substitute for class politics. It’s 18mins long but worth listening to.
“Like gender, race without a sense of class is almost meaningless”, a comment he makes after tearing apart feminist support for war mongering Australian prime minister Julia Gillard before giving it loads to those who see Barack Obama’s presidency as a radical change of direction because of his skin colour, when in fact nothing important has changed from a policy perspective.
Congratulations to Claire Daly et al. It certainly looks as if this will not pass, that is shameful.
EC
The figures seem to indicate that it’s not women from poorer backgrounds that are travelling but those from more middle class or professional classes.
As we are all supposed to be Europeans now, what’s the difference for someone travelling from Mayo to Liverpool rather than Dublin, arguably its easier to fly to Liverpool is it not?
Ghandi,
If the figures do indicate that it’s not women from poorer backgrounds who are travelling that would seem to pretty much prove the economic discrimination argument. And if abortion was legal, someone from Mayo would presumably be travelling to Castlebar rather than Dublin or Liverpool.
In any case presumably your objection to abortion is a moral pne so questions of vclass or transport are beside the point to you on this one.
Correct my objection is moral, but I posed the other questions none the less, Mayo was only an example, most from rural areas would have to travel in any event would they not, or do you propose availability in every doctor’s surgery?
It doesn’t prove the economic argument but shows that those who see pregnancy as more of a hinderance to their lifestyle are more likely to avail of it.
“Abortion is a lifestyle choice”. You’d almost have a career in Labour with an analysis like that…
That’s a mean and fallacious argument Ghandi I’d have to say. I thought we were having a realistic discussion here but it appears, to use an English phrase, that you’re playing silly buggers. The implication that abortion is the self indulgent preserve of immoral middle class women is an old Irish ‘Pro-Life’ canard which I’m surprised to see you come out with. Perhaps the man who commented that there’s no point arguing with Pro-Lifers had a point.
More fool me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Ghandi, how does a pro-file outlook square up with self-confessed involvement with the IRSM? That’s a genuine question, I’m not looking to score points here. The line between moral justification of one but not the other, in terms of sanctity of human life or whatever way one might phrase it, seems a bit blurry there.
No, it shows that those who can afford it are more likely to avail of it. Going to England for an abortion will cost a four-figure sum for the procedure, travel and accommodation alone. And even more if she has to factor in things like childcare and loss of wages. If lower-income women are underrepresented in the statistics, it’s almost certainly in part because they’re priced out of it.
They just voted on the bill going to a second reading.
Tá: 20
Níl: 109
Níl: 111
Sorry.
Does anyone have a list of who voted which way? The 20, the 111, and of course the 33 who failed to show up at all?
The party whips are emailed the list soon after the vote takes place, so Catherine Murphy’s office should have it. It’ll also be up on the internal Oireachtas system soon. Probably tomorrow before it shows up on the web.
It doesn’t show who didn’t turn up, though.
Well, I suppose we can work that out by a process of elimination.
20 is lower than I was expecting. The ULA plus SF should be 19 alone (well, 18 minus Doherty). Then Halligan, Ming and Wallace all spoke in favour and Nulty apparently did the decent thing too. The numbers don’t add up. Also, I’m curious about the rest of the independents, particularly O’Sullivan and Murphy.
O’Sullivan and Murphy both spoke in favour of the bill, although that doesn’t always translate to voting in favour. Murphy’s speech was good for the most part, O’Sullivan’s one of those “I’m agin abortion but…”
Did Gerry Adams give the same type of speech as O’Sullivan?
Yep. I didn’t see the other SF speeches though.
I still haven’t seen a list of those who voted Yes.
I thought Murphy’s speech was good too. O’Sullivan’s one was better than I expected tbh.
Halligan and Ming surprisingly good. RBB good to start but… not sure about the end. Daly excellent.
List of Tá and Níls will (should) be on Oireachtas site tomorrow
According to twitter, Nulty, who has of course already lost the whip, was the only Labour TD to vote for action on X. Apparently, neither Penrose nor Broughan did, despite their own loss of the whip.
At least ten members of the technical group (Clare Daly, Joe Higgins, Joan Collins, RBB, Mick Wallace, Ming Flanagan, Maureen O’Sullivan, John Halligan, Thomas Pringle, Catherine Murphy) have indicated support for the bill in the last few days – plus Patrick Nulty voted for it and I thought the 14 SF TDs (minus Pearse Doherty) were all voting for.
So there should have been at least 24 votes in favour rather than 20, and possibly 25-6 as Shane Ross has made positive noises and I’m not sure about Seamus Healy. Finian McGrath has also been very quiet.
Interesting to see who the missing nominal supporters were.
I’d almost be pleasantly surprised if Peader Toibin voted for the Bill.
If Healy didn’t show up I’ll be demanding to see his sick note at the ULA conference.
The Oireachtas report is up now.
I was watching online as the vote took place, and the 20 seemed to be made up of 11 ULA/Inds and 9 SF.
The chamber was empty though before it came to the vote, it seemed like there was only Daly and a few ULA and Ind TDs on one side and a few Labour on the other.
LATC, I have no difficulty in squaring up my positions. The reality is that at that time there was a military conflict on the island, whether ones agrees with the merits of it or not the fact is that it was ongoing, during my involvement with the IRSM I and others were attempting to refine military conflict in a number of ways, which I won’t go into here, coupled with developing the political strategy as set out by Ta Power, unfortunately that came to an end when we were attacked by other elements in 1987.
I believe in the sanctity of all human life, I accept that you are not trying to score points, nor am I, but you coming relatively late to this, would not have an appreciation of the position many people found themselves in in the 80′s, particularly in relation to conflict, and whilst I have ,many problems with the GFA at least it gave an opportunity to end the military war.
This is gone off on a tangent somewhat from the topic so if WBS wants to move it fire away so to speak.
Ghandi, thanks for answering that question in an honest way and not taking it up wrong. I take your point about the circumstances on the ground at the time, and you’re correct I wasn’t part of that and don’t have the same up-close perspective on the issues and decisions. What I would say though is that the argument that the real life difficulties of a situation dictate the moral choices could equally well be made about the circumstances which a woman faced with the decision to abort or otherwise finds herself in. Much as I’d imagine you might uphold the right of the IRSM to act as it did in difficult circumstances, and not to be beholden to any higher moral authority, the same argument can be made by a woman faced with her difficult circumstances. I appreciate that it’s a moral conviction with you, I respect your personal position on that although as you know I strongly disagree with it, so I’m not trying to argue here in order to convince you of the error of your ways as I’d see it, I’m simply stating that there are difficulties with black and white positions based on moral convictions.
I think there is a difference and would perhaps look at abortion as more similar to suicide in that its a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Though I can fully understand why someone would commit suicide particularly in the current economic climate, where the male suicide rate is very under reported.
In relation to the IRSM they did not engage in indiscriminate car bombings like PIRA, and I have never supported nor condoned (nor would I ) the killing of non combatants, we may argue over the meaning of combatant but that’s another days work. I think the murder of a child born or unborn is abhorrent full stop.
Nah, no worries about tangents. Interesting discussion.
I would also say that within the IRSM we had to deal with more physopaths than any other grouping, so the fact that we were able to hold the line in so far as we did was worthwhile in itself. The period under JOR’s command has never been debated or understood, except to say that the objectives of the controllers behind the attacks was to prevent the emergence of a refined military force pushing a class message.
Again more of this at some other more appropriate time.
By the way, thank you Michelle Mulherin for injecting some much needed humour into the discussion. The gobdaw.
It was but one, though perhaps the high/low point, in a number of WTF moments throughout the morning.
I’ve just remembered that this is actually her second time in the national spotlight. She’s the Fine Gaeler who wanted to introduce national service for the unemployed a while back!
Uh-oh!
She also described the Libyans who took to the streets against Qaddafi as terrorists.
Ah, that rings a bell.
I’m genuinely amazed that Fine Gael let her speak in public ever. They certainly won’t be letting her within a mile of a radio studio again after today’s performance on Matt Cooper.
In fairness, she may be my new favourite government TD, now that Mattie McGrath is no longer in government.
I was watching her contribution also, and it struck me that the last bit seemed almost tacked on, as if she were thinking aloud – actually much of her contribution was rambling. But perhaps not. Perhaps that was all part of her notes.
It was an amazing muddled performance. I’d hate to have her trying to get me off a parking fine. You’d probably end up being sentenced to death.
that last comment should be further up and is a further reply to LATC
It does do people service, because a large excuse for the push for abortion is that it’s medically necsessary – this fact shows we obviously don’t need it. Abortion is plain bad medicine, to move forward as a society at all, we need to leave it behind in the dark ages, and afford EVERY person equal rights, regardless of how small they are. And women have the right not to be lied to about the truth of abortion.
Isn’t it interesting how the idea that foetuses are just “small people” only ever seems to get brought out when abortion is discussed. You don’t hear it in the context of child benefit, or the census, or the general mortality rate, or how naturalisation should be acquired. We seem pretty accustomed to distinguishing them from actual people in pretty much every other area of law, succession being the only exception I can think of. And I don’t hear the foetus fetishists clamouring for any of those things to change.
@Wendy
You don’t hear it in the context of child benefit, or the census, or the general mortality rate, or how naturalisation should be acquired.
The deep bio-ethical questions around when personhood is assumed by a developing foetus are not something that could ever be addressed by the social welfare code, or the CSO, or indeed immigration policy.
Many would argue that this occurs when the foetus becomes viable to survive outside the womb, some would say it only occurs at the moment of birth, and there are even academics on the lunatic fringe of the pro-abortion camp who argue that the rights to bodily integrity do not automatically accrue to the child even post-partum … i.e. the proponents of so called after-birth abortion:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf
But, however we thread our way through this eithical minefield, it certainly will not be on the basis of appealing to the social welfare code as you suggest.
Otherwise would the introduction of means-testing of child benefit would leave rich kids open to being arbitrarily killed by their parents?
Er, you appear to be reading my point backwards. I’m saying that the way we treat foetuses in those contexts reflects society’s view on when “personhood” begins, not that it should determine it. Anti-abortionists’ claim to believe that foetuses are merely small people is one that I will find impossible to take seriously until they start campaigning for foetuses to be treated like small people in all areas of law and policy, not merely abortion.
I’m saying that the way we treat foetuses in those contexts reflects society’s view on when “personhood” begins
No, its merely a reflection of what government views as the ages at which it is affordable and appropriate for state to subsidize the costs associated with child-rearing.
In recent years, child benefit coverage has been both increased to include children not resident in the state, and also reduced to exclude older teens still in fulltime education.
Was either of those changes reflective of a changed societal view of the personhood status of the children who gained or lost their benefits?
(Personhood in this context is the condition of being a human individual accorded moral and/or legal rights)
Were the stay-at-home children of migrant workers suddenly elevated from the status of non-person in the eyes of Irish society?
If the state were to back-date child benefit to a number of months pre-birth, it would simply be a practical contribution to the costs of preparing for the arrival of a newborn, not in any sense a commentary on the personhood status of the foetus.
Have you any evidence that the government ever even considered covering foetuses with child benefit, and rejected that idea because of costs? And what of the failure of anti-abortionists to campaign for its extension to foetuses, as others have consistently done with respect to migrants’ children?
You also haven’t addressed the other issues I raised, which would be enough to point to a societal distinction between foetuses and people even if child benefit were to be paid before birth (hence I agree with your final paragraph, and I don’t think it helps your argument any).
“Abortion is plain bad medicine,”
Tell us, please, about your extensive medical qualifications.
@Wendy
Have you any evidence that the government ever even considered covering foetuses with child benefit, and rejected that idea because of costs?
No, of course not. Did I claim anywhere that was the case? Looking back over my previous post, I cant see how you could logically come to that conclusion.
What I said was that if the state were to make such a change, it would only be reflective of the sizable upfront costs involved for new parents, not any kind of commentary on personhood.
In fact the state currently funnels substantial funds via community welfare officers to expectant parents who are already on welfare (to cover the cost of prams, cots, bottles etc). A change to redefine this funding as child benefit would simply have the effect of making the payments universal, not to reflect a philosophical position on the moral and/or legal rights of the foetus.
And what of the failure of anti-abortionists to campaign for its extension to foetuses
I cant speak for the failure of pro-lifers to campaign for anything in particular.
But I suspect that if such an approach even occurred to them, they would want to avoid muddying the waters with monetary/budgetary issues, as they view the question as a purely moral concern.
… as others have consistently done with respect to migrants’ children?
That change was imposed by the EU, and was certainly not a result of political campaigning, of the right-on variety or otherwise.
You also haven’t addressed the other issues I raised which would be enough to point to a societal distinction between foetuses and people
Which issues … immigration policy, or statistics gathering by the CSO?
Societal views are pretty much irrelevant to how the CSO goes about its business, instead it simply uses internationally agreed statistical norms when calculating mortality rates. The WHO (not known for their pro-life credentials) defines the perinatal mortality rate to include death in utero, still-birth and death within the first week post-partum. The CSO uses the same metric. In neither case is the inclusion of post-partum infants in the perinatal mortality rate in any way a judgement of their personhood or lack thereof. It is simply a statistical measure of the success of public health initiatives promoting safe childbirth and neonatal case.
On the naturalization issue, under Irish law being born in Ireland no longer automatically confers citizenship rights. So there is no distinction there between pre-birth and port-birth, in both cases the child is not a citizen if both parents are not already themselves citizens.
Now if you wanted a better example of where state policies are actually reflective of a general view on personhood in utero, you could look to the US federal statue book, specifically the Unborn Victims of Violence Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
This reflects the general societal view of the murder of a pregnant woman as being more heinous and morally repugnant than other crimes of murder. And despite the intent to protect women at a particular vulnerable time, the act has been consistently attacked by pro-abortion campaigners.
Looking back over my previous post, I cant see how you could logically come to that conclusion.
From this: “its merely a reflection of what government views as the ages at which it is affordable and appropriate for state to subsidize the costs associated with child-rearing.”
To me, this sounds like an assertion that the failure to extend child benefit to foetuses was a deliberate decision grounded in fiscal policy.
I suspect that if such an approach even occurred to them, they would want to avoid muddying the waters with monetary/budgetary issues, as they view the question as a purely moral concern.
I don’t see why a purely moral concern about foetal personhood would prevent them from arguing that benefits should be available before birth on the same terms as after birth; in fact that would only be consistent with a moral position. Anyway they’re often heard raising other monetary issues around abortion, for example that even if a woman is allowed to have one the state shouldn’t bear the cost of it.
That change was imposed by the EU, and was certainly not a result of political campaigning, of the right-on variety or otherwise.
I’m not referring to that change. Migrants’ children in Ireland have lost out on child benefit due to the habitual residence condition, which was not imposed by the EU, and which there certainly have been campaigns against.
instead it simply uses internationally agreed statistical norms when calculating mortality rates
The fact that these are internationally agreed norms underscores my point. Internationally, foetuses are not considered people. Yes, their deaths are included in the perinatal mortality rate, but I specified the general mortality rate.
I also listed the census separately from the mortality rate for a reason: foetuses aren’t counted in the census. As far as I can tell, there isn’t even a question about them in the Irish census, and their existence isn’t factored into the population count. To my mind this says more than anything else about the way we distinguish them from actual people.
under Irish law being born in Ireland no longer automatically confers citizenship rights. So there is no distinction there between pre-birth and port-birth, in both cases the child is not a citizen if both parents are not already themselves citizens.
That’s factually incorrect. Citizenship is also granted where one parent has been legally resident in Ireland for at least three years – but only if the child itself was born, not merely conceived, in Ireland. Anyway, there was no such thing in Ireland as nationality on the basis of place of conception prior to the referendum, nor am I aware of any other country that grants it.
And while the Unborn Victims of Violence Act certainly reflects a particular view in the US of the murder of a pregnant woman, it can hardly be said to reflect a view that a foetus is a person. After all the US Constitution has been held for 40 years to protect the right of a woman to end the life of her own foetus – while simultaneously permitting the death penalty to be imposed on her if she ends the life of her child.
From this: “its merely a reflection of what government views as the ages at which it is affordable and appropriate for state to subsidize the costs associated with child-rearing.”
To me, this sounds like an assertion that the failure to extend child benefit to foetuses was a deliberate decision grounded in fiscal policy.
Look back at the context of that statement. It was introducing the motivation for actually occurring government decisions on child benefit coverage of migrant children and university students, as opposed to the assumed motivations of purported government decisions on foetal coverage (that to my knowledge have never even been discussed in reality).
I don’t see why a purely moral concern about foetal personhood would prevent them from arguing that benefits should be available before birth on the same terms as after birth; in fact that would only be consistent with a moral position.
Of course, it wouldnt prevent such arguments, but neither I think can much be read into the lack of such an approach. Thats just the nature of debate, one doesnt get to dictate the tactics of ones opponents.
I’m not referring to that change. Migrants’ children in Ireland have lost out on child benefit due to the habitual residence condition, which was not imposed by the EU, and which there certainly have been campaigns against.
Not really sure what youre getting at with that, other than to suggest that the right-on crowd campaigned in a particular way on an issue where foetal personhood never arose.
The fact that these are internationally agreed norms underscores my point. Internationally, foetuses are not considered people.
What do you base that assertion on? Dev only claimed to see into the heart of the Irish people, whereas this seems to be a sweeping statement of global scope on the moral compass of the entire human race.
I also listed the census separately from the mortality rate for a reason: foetuses aren’t counted in the census. As far as I can tell, there isn’t even a question about them in the Irish census, and their existence isn’t factored into the population count. To my mind this says more than anything else about the way we distinguish them from actual people.
What it actually means is that the census is about collecting hard data as a baseline for population projections. Including unborn children would be statistically problematic, as the number of women who are pregnant unbeknownst to themselves would skew the figures. There are also privacy issues at work.
So instead the CSO takes these data on the number, gender and age-profile of the post-birth people in the country and projects from that the future population trends using other data on birth-rates that are collected separate to the census itself.
Thats all the census is about, a value-free statistical exercise to aid future planning. It also asks questions about religious affiliation and education level and language ability, without making any judgements on those topics.
under Irish law being born in Ireland no longer automatically confers citizenship rights. So there is no distinction there between pre-birth and port-birth, in both cases the child is not a citizen if both parents are not already themselves citizens.
That’s factually incorrect. Citizenship is also granted where one parent has been legally resident in Ireland for at least three years
Well thats just a nit-pick … either a citizen, or on track to become a citizen.
… but only if the child itself was born, not merely conceived, in Ireland. Anyway, there was no such thing in Ireland as nationality on the basis of place of conception prior to the referendum, nor am I aware of any other country that grants it.
Of course not, because such an approach would be wide open to abuse, it being often impossible to prove where a child was conceived, and in fact the exact date of conception is often unknown to the mother herself.
And while the Unborn Victims of Violence Act certainly reflects a particular view in the US of the murder of a pregnant woman, it can hardly be said to reflect a view that a foetus is a person.
Well, it explicitly defines the unborn child to be a member of the species homo sapiens. And in fact it is widely considered among jurists to be a first step to establishing foetal personhood under US law.
After all the US Constitution has been held for 40 years to protect the right of a woman to end the life of her own foetus
Not quite. What the judgement in Roe holds is that a womens right to privacy under the 14th Amendment of 1868 trumps the individual States\’ right to regulate access to abortion of an unviable foetus. That is to say, the Court didnt so much uphold the right to end life, it merely limited the States\’ competence in breaching privacy under certain circumstances.
And the concept of personhood is absolutely crucial to Roe, so much so that the judgement contains an in-built collapse clause if foetal personhood was to be established.
It also purports to interpret what the framers of 14th Amendment considered a person back in 1868, even though as pointed out by a dissenting Justice, there were at least 36 state laws in existence at the time limiting abortion.
… while simultaneously permitting the death penalty to be imposed on her if she ends the life of her child.
Except for the years when capital punishment was suspended by the Supreme Court as cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the 8th Amendment.
(One nitpick deserves another
)
as opposed to the assumed motivations of purported government decisions on foetal coverage (that to my knowledge have never even been discussed in reality)
Thanks, that was my point: there most likely have been no government decisions on foetal coverage, have never been discussed in reality because no government dealing with child benefit has considered that foetuses are “children”.
Not really sure what youre getting at with that, other than to suggest that the right-on crowd campaigned in a particular way on an issue where foetal personhood never arose.
What I’m getting at is that the exclusion of this particular category of children has been strongly opposed by those who think migrant children should have the same rights as other children, whereas people like Pio who claim to think foetuses should have the same rights as “other” children haven’t batted an eyelid over their exclusion from child benefit.
What do you base that assertion on?
Er, on what we were talking about. The fact that internationally agreed statistical norms when calculating (general) mortality rates do not include foetuses. As well as all the other things I’ve mentioned that don’t include foetuses.
Including unborn children would be statistically problematic, as the number of women who are pregnant unbeknownst to themselves would skew the figures
So what? The census always undercounts. Undocumented migrants, people ordinarily resident but away during the census period, people who just refuse to answer. And I don’t see why privacy would be an insurmountable barrier either, women who don’t want to reveal their pregnancy could lie just as people lie about other things on the census. I’m sure plenty of people don’t answer the mental health question honestly either.
Thats all the census is about, a value-free statistical exercise to aid future planning.
It’s also about allocating current resources and redistricting Oireachtas constituencies. The Constitution says that the latter has to be done according to the latest census to ensure a particular ratio of TDs per population; this is not about future planning but the numbers counted in the recent past. And those numbers exclude foetuses.
Try as you like to get around it, “the population of Ireland” as recognised based on CSO data is the population of the born. And while people do often comment on the undercounting of certain categories of people, I have never heard anyone say the actual population at the time of enumeration was higher because of all the uncounted foetuses.
Well thats just a nit-pick … either a citizen, or on track to become a citizen.
It’s not a nitpick at all. First of all many non-citizens never become citizens. Secondly, if they were citizens then the child’s place of birth would be irrelevant because the child of an Irish citizen is an Irish citizen wherever born. For the child of a non-citizen three years resident in Ireland however, citizenship very much depends on place of birth.
Of course not, because such an approach would be wide open to abuse, it being often impossible to prove where a child was conceived, and in fact the exact date of conception is often unknown to the mother herself.
Again this suggests that citizenship based on conception was actually contemplated by lawmakers and rejected. I doubt that’s the case. I also think it’s possible to construct such a law in a way that minimises the potential for abuse but that’s not really the point. There are plenty of laws that are wide open to abuse; that doesn’t stop people campaigning for them if they really believe the principles that underlie them.
That is to say, the Court didnt so much uphold the right to end life, it merely limited the States\’ competence in breaching privacy under certain circumstances.
… the privacy interest in question being the right to terminate a pregnancy. The majority decision explicitly stated that that right was encompassed within the right of privacy (while not, of course, recognising it as absolute).
And the concept of personhood is absolutely crucial to Roe, so much so that the judgement contains an in-built collapse clause if foetal personhood was to be established.
Yes, it is crucial that the court found the foetus to not be a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, but I’m not sure how you think that supports your argument.
It also purports to interpret what the framers of 14th Amendment considered a person back in 1868, even though as pointed out by a dissenting Justice, there were at least 36 state laws in existence at the time limiting abortion.
Rehnquist didn’t mention those 36 laws in the context of foetal personhood. He said those laws showed that the framers did not intend for the 14th Amendment to prohibit the states from outlawing abortion. If the framers considered the foetus a person, then it wouldn’t be a matter for the states at all; the 14th Amendment itself would have to be interpreted to prohibit abortion. There’s no reason to think that they did, though. And foetal personhood was not generally the basis of anti-abortion view in that period of US history.
Thanks, that was my point: there most likely have been no government decisions on foetal coverage, have never been discussed in reality because no government dealing with child benefit has considered that foetuses are “children”.
So your point was to extrapolate from the likely lack of a discussion to an assumption as to the reason for that?
Now earlier you asked for evidence that the lack of child benefit coverage for the unborn was based on cost considerations.
Any chance of you offering some actual evidence to support your theory that no government has accepted the personhood of the foetus?
What I’m getting at is that the exclusion of this particular category of children has been strongly opposed by those who think migrant children should have the same rights as other children, whereas people like Pio who claim to think foetuses should have the same rights as “other” children haven’t batted an eyelid over their exclusion from child benefit.
Oh, I see – you happen to be interested in some unrelated issue, so on the basis on the most flimsy evidence you ascribe the opposite viewpoint to the OP?
Boo, hiss! Look theres no direct evidence that he supports migrants as much as I do, therefore he must be a bad person, therefore my views on an unrelated topic must be superior!
Er, on what we were talking about. The fact that internationally agreed statistical norms when calculating (general) mortality rates do not include foetuses.
Ask yourself the question on why mortality rates are even measured. Its not a commentary on the human condition, its just a metric on the success or otherwise of public health initiatives.
So what? The census always undercounts. Undocumented migrants, people ordinarily resident but away during the census period, people who just refuse to answer.
So if the statistics are not perfect, we discard any effort to make them as accurate as possible?
And I don’t see why privacy would be an insurmountable barrier either, women who don’t want to reveal their pregnancy could lie just as people lie about other things on the census. I’m sure plenty of people don’t answer the mental health question honestly either.
Most privacy advocates would take exception to that line of reasoning – invasive questions are fine, as long as one can just be untruthful in ones answers.
Would asking Irish soldiers about their sexual orientation be OK (as in the pre-dont-ask/dont-tell US military), they can always just lie about it, right?
It’s also about allocating current resources and redistricting Oireachtas constituencies. The Constitution says that the latter has to be done according to the latest census to ensure a particular ratio of TDs per population; this is not about future planning but the numbers counted in the recent past. And those numbers exclude foetuses.
Those constituency population numbers also include post-partum children who dont even have the right to vote as yet. Its just a very rough measure to ensure consistituencies have roughly equal representation.
Try as you like to get around it, “the population of Ireland” as recognised based on CSO data is the population of the born. And while people do often comment on the undercounting of certain categories of people, I have never heard anyone say the actual population at the time of enumeration was higher because of all the uncounted foetuses.
Youre confusing the definition of population as a statistical metric, with the moral & legal concepts of personhood.
Population is defined in a certain way simply so that we can compare like-with-like, its not intended to confer or deny personhood to anyone.
Temporary lifting of Gorwins Law … a census carried in Germany during the spring of 1939 took very good care to count groups considered to be Untermenschen by the Nazi regime. The organizers of the census clearly denied personhood to such groups, yet included them in the census (because they needed good data to drive their extermination plans).
Yes, it is crucial that the court found the foetus to not be a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, but I’m not sure how you think that supports your argument.
The point was that the majority Justices took care to include the collapse clause, which very deliberately provides the means for the ruling to overturned if foetal personhood could be established.
Rehnquist didn’t mention those 36 laws in the context of foetal personhood. He said those laws showed that the framers did not intend for the 14th Amendment to prohibit the states from outlawing abortion. If the framers considered the foetus a person, then it wouldn’t be a matter for the states at all; the 14th Amendment itself would have to be interpreted to prohibit abortion. There’s no reason to think that they did, though.
Rehnquists point was I believe that theres no reason to think that framers of the 14th thought one way or the other on the subject – they didnt intend for the amendment to either prevent or allow it, as abortion simply was not on their as-yet uninvented radar. And in coming to their opinion, the majority Justices had to construe a purpose in the amendment that was unknown to the framers.
Temporary lifting of Gorwins Law … a census carried in Germany during the spring of 1939 took very good care to count groups considered to be Untermenschen by the Nazi regime. The organizers of the census clearly denied personhood to such groups, yet included them in the census (because they needed good data to drive their extermination plans).
Did they? How are you defining personhood?
Any chance of you offering some actual evidence to support your theory that no government has accepted the personhood of the foetus?
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie
Look theres no direct evidence that he supports migrants as much as I do, therefore he must be a bad person, therefore my views on an unrelated topic must be superior!
I was almost tempted to leave the discussion after this because you’re clearly starting to lose control of yourself, but I’ll soldier on for now. My point has nothing to do with anyone being a bad person or even supporting migrants. It’s about being consistent in one’s approach to granting rights to a particular category. Those who believe that migrants should have rights and who also campaign against the denial of migrant access to child benefit are being consistent in their approach. Those who say that foetuses should have rights but completely ignore the denial of foetal access to child benefit are not being consistent in their approach, and that (in tandem with all the other issues I’ve raised) leads me to doubt that it’s really foetal rights they’re concerned with.
Ask yourself the question on why mortality rates are even measured. Its not a commentary on the human condition, its just a metric on the success or otherwise of public health initiatives.
If the lives of foetuses aren’t considered relevant in this regard then that too only furthers my argument.
So if the statistics are not perfect, we discard any effort to make them as accurate as possible?
Well that’s your own approach isn’t it? You’re saying that even though foetuses are people the census shouldn’t count any of them, rather than at least counting the ones women know about and will admit to.
Most privacy advocates would take exception to that line of reasoning – invasive questions are fine, as long as one can just be untruthful in ones answers.
Once again you spectacularly miss the point. Invasive questions are asked on the census. Whether or not anyone thinks they’re fine is not the issue here. The CSO is not refusing to ask about current pregnancies because of privacy concerns.
Its just a very rough measure to ensure consistituencies have roughly equal representation.
But if foetuses are people (voting rights have nothing to do with this constitutional requirement), why not make it less rough by counting them? After all why discard the effort to make equality of representation as accurate as possible?
Population is defined in a certain way simply so that we can compare like-with-like, its not intended to confer or deny personhood to anyone.
Which still doesn’t explain why foetuses aren’t considered part of that definition, when everyone born and still alive is.
The point was that the majority Justices took care to include the collapse clause, which very deliberately provides the means for the ruling to overturned if foetal personhood could be established.
Cite, please, for the claim that Blackmun was deliberately offering future courts a method to overturn his decision. The wording of that statement (“if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses” – emphasis added) suggests that he was referring only to the matter then before the court.
And in coming to their opinion, the majority Justices had to construe a purpose in the amendment that was unknown to the framers.
Yes. But that purpose had nothing to do with foetal personhood, about which Rehnquist’s dissent was silent.
The fact that these are internationally agreed norms underscores my point. Internationally, foetuses are not considered people.
What do you base that assertion on? Dev only claimed to see into the heart of the Irish people, whereas this seems to be a sweeping statement of global scope on the moral compass of the entire human race.
Wendy’s statement seems to be to be uncontentious. I’m not aware of any state that grants legal personhood to foetuses (although I’m open to correction). Being considered human and being a person are not the same thing. And the fact that a state grants certain protections to foetuses (foetal endangerment) does not mean that the state is therefore granting personhood to foetuses, any more than animal cruelty laws grant personhood to dogs.
BTW, I’d consider the use of the term ‘pro-abortion’ to be borderline trolling.
Borderline?
I’m just amused to find that this clown is a pro-lifer. I’d almost have been disappointed if he wasn’t.
@smiffy
Did they?
Yes, the clue is in the name. Branding a group as sub-human is hardly an assertion of their human dignity.
How are you defining personhood?
As I defined it in the thread above … the condition of being a human individual accorded moral and/or legal rights.
BTW, I’d consider the use of the term ‘pro-abortion’ to be borderline trolling.
That confuses me given that there were several prior references to people or views being anti-abortion, by multiple posters including the OP herself. Its just the form of terminology already in use on this thread.
It seems to me that you’re throwing the term ‘person’ around without any clear definition, going from one jurisdiction to another, and flipping from legal definitions (as when you talk about the Nazi regime) to philosophical definitions.
That’s hardly conducive to a productive discussion.
It’s not true that the Nazi regime considered Jews to be non-persons, by some definitions, although by other definitions that is the case. You can consider individuals to be ‘persons’ (both legally and morally) and still kill them. So the example you cite doesn’t hold up very well.
I suspect you already know that the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion aren’t equivalent, but just for the sake of it anti-abortion is a neutral statement of fact, and those who define themselves as ‘pro-life’ would hardly object to it.
The term pro-abortion is much more loaded, and is simply not true in the case of those who define themselves as ‘pro-choice’.
A more appropriate equivalent of ‘pro-abortion’ would be, I’d suggest, ‘anti-woman’. It’s not a term I’d tend to use, but if that’s the level you want to pitch the debate at, feel free.
@smiffy
I’m not aware of any state that grants legal personhood to foetuses (although I’m open to correction).
Duly corrected …
American Convention on Human Rights 1978, Article 4.1:
Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.
fully ratified by and binding on 24 countries.
Smiffy did say “any state”. And ratification of an international treaty, notwithstanding its binding nature, doesn’t necessarily translate to recognition of its terms in the domestic law – as we discussed a week or so ago in the Right to Health post. So I’d reiterate Smiffy’s question – is there any state that actually grants legal personhood to foetuses?
@Wendy
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie
I see no references therein to the logic behind eligibility for child benefit being in any way connected to a government view on foetal personhood.
It’s about being consistent in one’s approach to granting rights to a particular category.
Surely youre not comparing the right to life with the entitlement to a measly €140 a month?
A tad disproportionate, no?
Those who believe that migrants should have rights and who also campaign against the denial of migrant access to child benefit are being consistent in their approach.
But no-one is advocating that migrants should be deprived of life.
The right to residency/citizenship and the entitlement to welfare might be comparable, but the right to life is surely at a completely different and more fundamental level.
If the lives of foetuses aren’t considered relevant in this regard then that too only furthers my argument.
Not really. As pointed out multiple posts ago, the lives of foetuses and new-born infants are considered relevant to perinatal mortality rate, as this is intended to measure the quality of ante-natal and neonatal care. The general mortality rate measures something different. As does life expectency at age fifty.
Well that’s your own approach isn’t it? You’re saying that even though foetuses are people the census shouldn’t count any of them, rather than at least counting the ones women know about and will admit to.
What in fact I\’m saying is that the purpose of the census is to produce accurate baseline population data. Counting at least some of something is not the way to produce accurate numbers. We can much more accurately count the number of post-partum people in the country and then use known birth-rate data to model future births (which is just another way of modelling the foetus population over the previous 9 months).
Either way, its an argument about the methodology of producing accurate statistics – not a judgement on the value of foetal life.
The CSO is not refusing to ask about current pregnancies because of privacy concerns.
Can you share your insight into the CSOs internal discussions on the matter?
But if foetuses are people (voting rights have nothing to do with this constitutional requirement)
Voting rights have nothing to do with the sizing of constituencies of electors for the purposes of electing representatives?
why not make it less rough by counting them? After all why discard the effort to make equality of representation as accurate as possible?
Because accuracy is not the point in this case. By allowing a range of 20k to 30k, the threshold has massive leeway of ±20%. There is obviously no intent to be anything other than a ball-park estimate. And no certainly there was no implied judgement on the value of anyones life.
Which still doesn’t explain why foetuses aren’t considered part of that definition, when everyone born and still alive is.
Because of the obvious problems involved in counting foetuses.
Cite, please, for the claim that Blackmun was deliberately offering future courts a method to overturn his decision. The wording of that statement (“if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses” – emphasis added) suggests that he was referring only to the matter then before the court.
The wording seems clear enough to me – if A is established, then the case enshrining B collapses. Are you suggesting that B (the interpretation of the 14th) could survive the establishment of A (foetal personhood)?
I see no references therein to the logic behind eligibility for child benefit being in any way connected to a government view on foetal personhood.
Section 1 of the Children’s Allowances Act 1944 defines a child as “a person under the age of sixteen years”. Yet the benefit is not payable in respect of foetuses.
The only logical conclusion one can draw from that is that the governmental view of “persons” does not include foetuses.
The right to residency/citizenship and the entitlement to welfare might be comparable, but the right to life is surely at a completely different and more fundamental level.
I tend to think of the latter as encompassing the former rather than being completely different, but in any case we wouldn’t be having this discussion if Pio had limited himself to calling for the equal right to life of foetuses rather than calling for equal rights for foetuses generally. Similarly, the type of anti-abortion discourse that I have been referring to tries to suggest that foetuses simply shouldn’t be distinguished from children, which on principle should mean not distinguishing them even in (what you consider to be) less fundamental respects.
the lives of foetuses and new-born infants are considered relevant to perinatal mortality rate, as this is intended to measure the quality of ante-natal and neonatal care. The general mortality rate measures something different.
That is an argument for having a separate measurement of perinatal mortality rates, not for excluding foetuses from the general mortality rate. All of the various mortality rates that are measured “measure something different”, and yet those deaths still go into the general rate. But not foetal deaths.
Counting at least some of something is not the way to produce accurate numbers. We can much more accurately count the number of post-partum people in the country and then use known birth-rate data to model future births
Given the undercounting of other groups which I mentioned previously, the census is inevitably an exercise in counting at least some of something. Counting the number of people who declare themselves pregnant now is likely to bring us closer to the number of those actually pregnant now, than guessing from the number of people who’ve given birth recently. At the very least the two sets of figures could be used in tandem to try to arrive at a reasonably good estimate.
Either way, its an argument about the methodology of producing accurate statistics – not a judgement on the value of foetal life.
“Value” is your word, not mine. I’m speaking of how foetal life is characterised. And when the CSO describes its statistics as reflecting the number of “persons” in the state, and that number does not include foetuses, then it’s pretty clear the CSO doesn’t characterise foetuses as persons. Yet the foetalists say nothing about this official depersonalisation.
Can you share your insight into the CSOs internal discussions on the matter?
Can you? You were the one who asserted privacy as a reason that foetuses aren’t counted.
Voting rights have nothing to do with the sizing of constituencies of electors for the purposes of electing representatives?
Insofar as constituencies are not based on the number of people with voting rights, but merely on the number of people.
By allowing a range of 20k to 30k, the threshold has massive leeway of ±20%. There is obviously no intent to be anything other than a ball-park estimate.
It’s curious that you seem to think accuracy is only important in relation to things where there is no constitutional prescription whatsoever as to numbers. Anyway, the part of the Constitution that prescribes the 20K-30K range isn’t the only relevant one here; another provision requires the TD-person ratio to be as equal as practicable throughout the country, and the court’s jurisprudence makes it clear that this is more than a mere “ballpark figure” obligation.
Because of the obvious problems involved in counting foetuses.
There are obvious problems involved in counting undocumented migrants and yet they still try. In fact at the time of the last census the CSO made a point of trying to reassure them their details would be kept in complete confidence. The US Census Bureau does the same thing. The wide acceptance that there is a large undercount doesn’t stop them making the effort.
The wording seems clear enough to me – if A is established, then the case enshrining B collapses.
“The appellant’s case” does not mean “the court’s decision in favour of the appellant”. It means the legal argument put forward by the appellant. Judges use that terminology even when they find against the relevant party. The idea that it was a deliberate prompt to future courts is, I’m afraid, simply a misreading. And one that I believe is of recent provenance – I cannot recall this being raised as an argument by anti-choice campaigners in the 1980s-1990s, when I was involved in US abortion rights campaigning and studying US constitutional law, nor can I find any reference to it in a chapter on the personhood debate from a 1984 book (Petchesky) on reproductive politics in the US.