When does life begin?

strobe

drkpower wrote: »

So, in your view, where you have been put in a predicament, through no fault of your own, where you believe you are justified to kill someone, that it is permissable to do so?

Leaving aside, for the moment, the major issue of what 'fault' means (and who judges it), try and apply your view to a pregnant woman. It appears you are saying that if she is pregnant, through no fault of her own, she should be entitled to kill a foetus which is infringing her rights?

Well that would be ignoring the second part of what Deise says.

deise go deo wrote: »

then that was their choice

She (he) meant that while the person taking the life did so in response to something that was no fault of their own, the life being taken was at fault of their own. Come now, I think that was a point pretty clearly made.

drkpower

strobe wrote: »

Well that would be ignoring the second part of what Deise says.

She (he) meant that while the person taking the life did so in response to something that was no fault of their own, the life being taken was at fault of their own. Come now, I think that was a point pretty clearly made.

I dont think it was at all, actually. It seems pretty clear Deise was using the fault of the mother only as the determining & critical factor? But lests see if s/he clarifies it and then applies the principle to the pregnant women.

Buit if s/he/you are suggesting that fault is the determining & critical factor in respect of the foetus also, lets deal with that by analogy to rights outside the foetal/maternal context.

If an adult was suffering from a profound mental illness (or someone in a state of automatism) was about to shoot you, do you believe you have the right to kill that person if that is the only way to prevent them shooting you?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are you opposed to the morning after pill?

+ are you opposed to the standard operational contraceptive pill?

RandolphEsq

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Eh?

Are you being serious? That is absolute BS. Infracting for claiming that women's judgments get clouded on this issue due to their maternal instincts is ridiculous. the language used was colorful, but the point was (is) valid. Review it there like a good bear

strobe

drkpower wrote: »

I dont think it was at all, actually. It seems pretty clear Deise was using the fault of the mother only as the determining & critical factor? But lests see if s/he clarifies it and then applies the principle to the pregnant women.

Well looking at Deise's two points I think it's obvious you are only looking at half their argument. But yeah. I don't want to put words in their mouth, she can speak for herself.

If an adult was suffering from a profound mental illness (or someone in a state of automatism) was about to shoot you, do you believe you have the right to kill that person if that is the only way to prevent them shooting you?

Self defense? Yes I believe in that. Hell, I'd kill you if you tried to steal my lollipop. I'm not too sure society should function on how I behave though. But if the person was being remote controlled by the brain slugs I'd definitely do my utmost not to hurt them. If it was my life or theirs? Yeah, I'd kill them. If the brain slugs gave me a choice between pushing them round in a wheel chair for a few months or killing them, I'd probably wheel them around, show them the sites, ye know?

Zombrex

Life began 4.3 billion years ago and hasn't stopped since.

Any other answer is just human's attempting to divide up things into manageable conceptual units. Its like asking where does the Atlantic turn into the Mediterranean. Nature makes no such distinctions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Earthhorse

Wicknight wrote: »

Its like asking where does the Atlantic turn into the Mediterranean.

Except that there are no moral implications to the answer of this question whereas there are to the question of when a human life begins.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are you opposed to the morning after pill?

The only reason I asked this question is because Wibbs brought it up days ago and it seemed to go unnoticed, but now I'm beginning to think that it's being ignored. Still waiting on an answer.

Zombrex

Earthhorse wrote: »

Except that there are no moral implications to the answer of this question whereas there are to the question of when a human life begins.

That is some what irrelevant. For a start there could easily be moral implications over such a question, countries have gone to war over the borders of their lands and seas.

But equally it being a moral or non-moral question means nothing to the underlying realities. Life is a sustained chemical reaction. We think in terms of individuals "beginning" not because this is what actually happens but because of our mental biases to viewing people this way. The two should not be confused, nature is under no obligation to fit neatly into the mental arrangements we developed hundreds of thousand of years before we even knew what a conception was.

Cat Melodeon

I believe life begins at birth. The journey to life from conception to the trip down the birth canal is a dangerous one, with an estimated 30-40% of conceptions never making it to birth (not counting those terminated artificially). Whether a birth is premature or full term is irrelevant. Until the child is delivered, it does not have rights. This is the only way to ensure that women have as equal a right to life as men do, and I believe that the life of a viable human should take precedence over a potential life.

Earthhorse

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what irrelevant. For a start there could easily be moral implications over such a question, countries have gone to war over the borders of their lands and seas.

But equally it being a moral or non-moral question means nothing to the underlying realities. Life is a sustained chemical reaction. We think in terms of individuals "beginning" not because this is what actually happens but because of our mental biases to viewing people this way. The two should not be confused, nature is under no obligation to fit neatly into the mental arrangements we developed hundreds of thousand of years before we even knew what a conception was.

The debate is really about when a life begins rather than when life begins. Nature may make no such distinctions but we do.

gozunda

RandolphEsq wrote: »

There is a difference between 'potential life' and 'actual life', assuming we are saying 'life' in the context of human beings being alive. In order for a human being to 'be alive' it needs more than a couple fertilized weeks in the womb. Women get emotional at the 'prospect' of the growth inside of them and irrationally equate this 'potential life' with a beautiful child. Men are better equipped, biologically, to logically discussing this matter without the risk of maternalism mushing their brains. There must be a distinguishing between potential life and actual life. It isn't wishy washy human rights nonsense defining this a priori but the advancement of science to note a cut-off point. Human rights can then build upon this.

This has to be a joke!
I have just had to pick myself up of the floor after laughing my head off! this is seriously the craziest bit of balloney I have read in years...

drkpower

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Until the child is delivered, it does not have rights.

So should a termination be pemitted at 40 weeks, when labour has commenced, at 10 cms dilatation but before delivery has occured?

drkpower

drkpower wrote: »

So should a termination be pemitted at 40 weeks, when labour has commenced, at 10 cms dilatation but before delivery has occured?

Or at any point between viability and birth?

gozunda

deise go deo wrote: »

The question I am asking is when do you think life begins? Specifically at what point does the being have a right to life.

This issue comes up very often in abortion debates, but I don't really want this thread to be a thread on abortion as such, just the issue of when people think life begins, and why that particular stage.


For me its at conception. I think that once the process of the development of Human life begins, then the being has a right to Life.

FCS What does it really matter? More collections of fertlised cells some which had implanted or otherwise are flushed down the toilet without even the woman knowing than we will ever know. Are you suggesting should we set a micro rescue service for these potential lives with micro life saving rings that these "lives" can cling on to and be rescued?

Stop beating yerselfs up about this. Life and inteligent sentience is not the same thing - as it has been pointed out cells have "life" but are not sentient.

When life begins who knows - how many of you remember been born? Anyone? No Well dont get yer underwear in a twist over something that is not knowable.

Humans really need to get over themselves - we are really not that important in the scheme of things.

RandolphEsq

gozunda wrote: »

This has to be a joke!
I have just had to pick myself up of the floor after laughing my head off! this is seriously the craziest bit of balloney I have read in years...

Eh . . . ? Baloney is the spelling for the assumed word you intended. Women get maternal about babies so equate a simple-celled, potential-human-life-form to the cute baby it might become. There is a line to be drawn which separates the time limit for an abortion to be moral or not. Women would generally adopt an 'all-or-nothing' approach to the issue as a result (morning-after-pill might be hypocritically permitted). It would be interesting to see a male-only debate and a female-only debate and compare the trending arguments of each.

Zombrex

Earthhorse wrote: »

The debate is really about when a life begins rather than when life begins. Nature may make no such distinctions but we do.

We do, and I've no issue with that. It is only when people make appeals to nature to give us the "right answer" that this point needs to be made.

gozunda

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Eh . . . ? Baloney is the spelling for the assumed word you intended. Women get maternal about babies so equate a simple-celled, potential-human-life-form to the cute baby it might become. There is a line to be drawn which separates the time limit for an abortion to be moral or not. Women would generally adopt an 'all-or-nothing' approach to the issue as a result (morning-after-pill might be hypocritically permitted). It would be interesting to see a male-only debate and a female-only debate and compare the trending arguments of each.

If all women get all maternal as you suggest then how come so many woman are pro choice and it is women who have to make a final choice? Disenfranchising women simply because
they may get emotional is daft. I have came across more male hysterically orientated quasi religious twaddle here than I have encountered in comparison to many female posters on similar threads

Cat Melodeon

drkpower wrote: »

So should a termination be pemitted at 40 weeks, when labour has commenced, at 10 cms dilatation but before delivery has occured?

bluewolf wrote: »

Or at any point between viability and birth?

If the life of the mother is at risk, yes. If the choice is between her life and the child's, yes. The mother's life should automatically be given precedence over that of the developing foetus. An unborn child does not have a name, a birth cert, a PPS number or rights. Parents may feel attached to the unborn child, may sense it's developing personality, may think of it's future as a part of their lives. They may also fear it if it's existence is threatening the life of the mother. They may resent it if it was unplanned or problematic in some way. Whatever the emotional attachment of the parent to the foetus (or lack thereof), it does not have legal rights until it has been born. Thus, life and the right to life cannot really be said to begin until after birth. Anything else is a discussion of moral codes and personal beliefs rather than legal rights. Those are relative, no one can win an argument around those.

MagicMarker

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

If the life of the mother is at risk, yes. If the choice is between her life and the child's, yes. The mother's life should automatically be given precedence over that of the developing foetus. An unborn child does not have a name, a birth cert, a PPS number or rights. Parents may feel attached to the unborn child, may sense it's developing personality, may think of it's future as a part of their lives. They may also fear it if it's existence is threatening the life of the mother. They may resent it if it was unplanned or problematic in some way. Whatever the emotional attachment of the parent to the foetus (or lack thereof), it does not have legal rights until it has been born. Thus, life and the right to life cannot really be said to begin until after birth. Anything else is a discussion of moral codes and personal beliefs rather than legal rights. Those are relative, no one can win an argument around those.

What if the mother just changes her mind at 40 weeks? Do her rights still take precedence?

Cat Melodeon

MagicMarker wrote: »

What if the mother just changes her mind at 40 weeks? Do her rights still take precedence?

Most states that allow abortion prohibit it after 24 weeks, so it would be illegal for a woman to be able to have a termination at 40 weeks simply because she 'changes her mind'. If her life is at risk however, then yes, her rights take precedence regardless of the age of the foetus. It is estimated that less than 1% of abortions are late term (defined as later than 21 weeks). Some of these are due to foetal abnormality or maternal illness. Others are due to the woman not realising she was pregnant or not being able to access abortion services due to financial or other restraints (there was a report in the mid-90s about the high proportion of Irish women presenting for late abortions in England due to difficulties in travelling/finding information/raising money etc). The social context might seem slightly off-topic, but what it leads to is that if you attempt to stop the mythical woman who just 'changes her mind' at 40 weeks by ruling that the right of the foetus takes precedence over that of the mother, you deny the rights of all the other women who require an abortion for legitimate reasons.

Hang on a sec there cat
You said

I believe life begins at birth.
...
Until the child is delivered, it does not have rights.

Now you're saying this is only true if the mother's life is at risk.

We're only asking about change of mind at 40 weeks because of your surprising assertion that you believe "life begins at birth".

It's not about what is or isn't legal elsewhere - if you believe that life begins at birth then does that mean you support any elective abortions up to birth? If not, then maybe you don't believe this at all?

Cat Melodeon

bluewolf wrote: »

Hang on a sec there cat
You said

Now you're saying this is only true if the mother's life is at risk.

We're only asking about change of mind at 40 weeks because of your surprising assertion that you believe "life begins at birth".

It's not about what is or isn't legal elsewhere - if you believe that life begins at birth then does that mean you support any elective abortions up to birth? If not, then maybe you don't believe this at all?

If we're talking about the right to life, then the legal right to life has to come in to play. In that case, absolutely, I believe life and the right to life begins at birth. Why is that a surprising assertion when that is what the majority of legal systems recognise? Laws are based on consensus around moral codes and while not always perfect, they generally strive to find the best fit to ensure the rights of all citizens. Unborn children are not citizens, therefore they do not have rights equal to those of their parents until they have been born, to ensure that the mother's rights are fully protected. From that perspective, life begins at birth. Wasn't that the question, rather than whether or not one supports all and any form of abortion?

southsiderosie

gozunda wrote: »

If all women get all maternal as you suggest then how come so many woman are pro choice and it is women who have to make a final choice? Disenfranchising women simply because
they may get emotional is daft. I have came across more male hysterically orientated quasi religious twaddle here than I have encountered in comparison to many female posters on similar threads

As far as I have seen in both the US and Ireland, differences in opinion over abortion come down to socioeconomic status and age, rather than gender. Specifically, in the US education is a much better predictor of support for abortion than gender. Interestingly, amongst Democrats (who are more in favor of abortion than Republicans) there is a noticeable gender split with women more supportive of abortion rights than their male counterparts, but I would guess that is due to the fact that Democrats are generally younger, women are generally better educated than men, and single mothers are far more likely to be Democrats than Republicans - and these are the women who are also statistically more likely to seek out an abortion.

MagicMarker

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

If we're talking about the right to life, then the legal right to life has to come in to play. In that case, absolutely, I believe life and the right to life begins at birth. Why is that a surprising assertion when that is what the majority of legal systems recognise? Laws are based on consensus around moral codes and while not always perfect, they generally strive to find the best fit to ensure the rights of all citizens. Unborn children are not citizens, therefore they do not have rights equal to those of their parents until they have been born, to ensure that the mother's rights are fully protected. From that perspective, life begins at birth. Wasn't that the question, rather than whether or not one supports all and any form of abortion?

You know full well what the question is, so it would be nice if you could answer it.

No one is asking you about the law, we're asking for your opinion. So, if you please, can you tell us if a woman should be able to terminate her child at 40 weeks because she has changed her mind?

Cat Melodeon

MagicMarker wrote: »

You know full well what the question is, so it would be nice if you could answer it.

No one is asking you about the law, we're asking for your opinion. So, if you please, can you tell us if a woman should be able to terminate her child at 40 weeks because she has changed her mind?

I cannot answer the question as it depends on the circumstances of the woman. Apologies if that doesn't fit a black and white view of the world, I don't believe such a thing exists.

Cat Melodeon

MagicMarker wrote: »

You know full well what the question is, so it would be nice if you could answer it.

And please note that the title of the thread is "When does life begin?".
That is the question I was referring to.

MagicMarker

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

I cannot answer the question as it depends on the circumstances of the woman. Apologies if that doesn't fit a black and white view of the world, I don't believe such a thing exists.

The woman is perfectly healthy and just doesn't want the baby anymore. I really don't see how the question isn't already very clear. You either think she should be able to terminate or you don't.?

What's also very clear is that you continue to ignore the question.

Cat Melodeon

MagicMarker wrote: »

The woman is perfectly healthy and just doesn't want the baby anymore. I really don't see how the question isn't already very clear. You either think she should be able to terminate or you don't.?

What's also very clear is that you continue to ignore the question.

I am not ignoring the question. The original question and the topic of the thread is 'When does life begin?'. I have answered that.

The question you have chosen to pose is about my opinion on abortion, which is a completely separate matter. I am not avoiding it, the context of the question was not clear - it is unlikely a woman would request an abortion at 40 weeks. In any case, she would not be able to obtain one as it is illegal to perform a non-medically indicated termination at that stage, so your question is moot.

Regarding my opinion, I support a woman's right to abortion freely up to 24 weeks. After that, it should be available to anyone who needs it for medical reasons, including psychiatric ones. I personally would not like for abortions after this to be commonplace - that is an entirely emotional and personal response to pregnancy - but if it came down to balancing the woman's rights with those of the unborn child, then the woman's rights must win out. What else are you going to do? Imprison her until she gives birth?

MagicMarker

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

I am not ignoring the question. The original question and the topic of the thread is 'When does life begin?'. I have answered that.

The question you have chosen to pose is about my opinion on abortion, which is a completely separate matter. I am not avoiding it, the context of the question was not clear - it is unlikely a woman would request an abortion at 40 weeks. In any case, she would not be able to obtain one as it is illegal to perform a non-medically indicated termination at that stage, so your question is moot.

Regarding my opinion, I support a woman's right to abortion freely up to 24 weeks. After that, it should be available to anyone who needs it for medical reasons, including psychiatric ones. I personally would not like for abortions after this to be commonplace - that is an entirely emotional and personal response to pregnancy - but if it came down to balancing the woman's rights with those of the unborn child, then the woman's rights must win out. What else are you going to do? Imprison her until she gives birth?

If you don't think life begins until birth then what's the problem with aborting at 40, or 30 weeks or even 25 weeks if the mother wishes to? What's the difference other than law?

Cat Melodeon

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you don't think life begins until birth then what's the problem with aborting at 40, or 30 weeks or even 25 weeks if the mother wishes to? What's the difference other than law?

There is no difference. Only the law.

What is your own opinion on the matter? Do you believe it should be prohibited altogether? Up to 12 weeks? 24? When does life begin, to your mind?

MagicMarker

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

There is no difference. Only the law.

So why are you against abortions after a certain point when you don't believe the child has any rights what so ever until they're born and that the mother's rights always take precedence?

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

What is your own opinion on the matter? Do you believe it should be prohibited altogether? Up to 12 weeks? 24? When does life begin, to your mind?

I have no idea.

Cat Melodeon

MagicMarker wrote: »

So why are you against abortions after a certain point when you don't believe the child has any rights what so ever until they're born and that the mother's rights always take precedence?

I didn't say that I was against abortion after a certain point. I spoke about my emotional response to pregnancy. As emotion is not a good basis for determining what rights an individual should have, I am happy to let the law determine that for me. In this case, that means an individual does not have rights until after they have been born, and abortion is difficult to procure after 24 weeks.

If you are unwilling to share your own opinions on the matter, I am unwilling to discuss mine any further. It is easy to attack when you have nothing worth defending.

I'm pretty sure the law here says the rights start at conception

MagicMarker

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

I didn't say that I was against abortion after a certain point. I spoke about my emotional response to pregnancy. As emotion is not a good basis for determining what rights an individual should have, I am happy to let the law determine that for me. In this case, that means an individual does not have rights until after they have been born, and abortion is difficult to procure after 24 weeks.

You said....

Regarding my opinion, I support a woman's right to abortion freely up to 24 weeks. After that, it should be available to anyone who needs it for medical reasons, including psychiatric ones. I personally would not like for abortions after this to be commonplace

If you really believe that an unborn child has no rights what so ever until the day they're born and that the mothers rights take precedence at all times right up until the moment of birth, then quite frankly I don't understand your position. It's contradictory in my opinion.

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

If you are unwilling to share your own opinions on the matter, I am unwilling to discuss mine any further. It is easy to attack when you have nothing worth defending.

I said I don't know. Would you like me to make up something for you? But by all means, use this as a cheap excuse to bow out of the conversation rather than clarify your position.

Cat Melodeon

The only excuse I will make for bowing out of the conversation is that I dislike how you pick apart what I have to say without offering anything yourself.

There may be some contradiction in what I have stated. That is because I would personally feel squeamish at the thought of aborting a child once I had felt it move. However, those personal feelings are just that, personal, and I would not deny another person the right to abort their child, nor do I move away from my firmly held belief that life and all it's rights begin at birth.

Whatever other people choose to believe is their choice, what I choose to believe is mine. You may find it contradictory; I find your stance, or lack thereof, to be feeble.

drkpower

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

However, those personal feelings are just that, personal, and I would not deny another person the right to abort their child, nor do I move away from my firmly held belief that life and all it's rights begin at birth..

So you do believe that a woman should be entitled to abort a foetus at 40 weeks, after labour has begun, at 10cms dilatation but before delivery has occurred?

Why have you been goin around in circles rather than just answering the question? If that is what you believe, why the reticence to actually say it?

Cat Melodeon

drkpower wrote: »

Why have you been goin around in circles rather than just answering the question? If that is what you believe, why the reticence to actually say it?

I am not going around in circles. The thread is about when we believe life begins, not about ridiculous hypothetical scenarios and cut-off points for abortion. I have clearly stated my beliefs, if you care to re-read them. Any reticence you perceive within in them can be attributed to my reaction to the discussion style of the other posters. If you wish to discuss cut off points for abortion rather than contribute anything to the discussion regarding when you believe life begins, go ahead, but I'm out.

drkpower

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

I am not going around in circles. The thread is about when we believe life begins, not about ridiculous hypothetical scenarios and cut-off points for abortion. I have clearly stated my beliefs, if you care to re-read them. Any reticence you perceive within in them can be attributed to my reaction to the discussion style of the other posters. If you wish to discuss cut off points for abortion rather than contribute anything to the discussion regarding when you believe life begins, go ahead, but I'm out.

You are the one who, in your very first post, went beyond the thread topic (when life begins?) and started discussing rights......

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Until the child is delivered, it does not have rights.

...yet now you complain when others question you on the point you made.......:pac:

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

So you do believe that a woman should be entitled to abort a foetus at 40 weeks, after labour has begun, at 10cms dilatation but before delivery has occurred?

drkpower wrote: »

So should a termination be pemitted at 40 weeks, when labour has commenced, at 10 cms dilatation but before delivery has occured?

MagicMarker wrote: »

You know full well what the question is, so it would be nice if you could answer it.

No one is asking you about the law, we're asking for your opinion. So, if you please, can you tell us if a woman should be able to terminate her child at 40 weeks because she has changed her mind?

MM you appear to be on a misson along with some other posters who have a massive hang up some daft scenario about those you obviously view as just silly emotional women waking up and deciding its a good day to have a termination

Do we have a deputation of SPUC here or something? Whats the hang up with this 40 weeks, 10 cm sh1te? Who is "We" btw? 38 - 40 weeks is the normal extent of human gestation so why would anyone decide to abort at this point? No medical professional would undertake this procedure at this stage of pregnacy with a fully grown fetus weighing on average between 5 and 8 pounds unless it was an emergency Do you have verified reports of this taking place? This has to be a joke!

The question is not "should she be able..if she changed her mind" but IF such a thing was readily available but whats would cause someone to make this decision. Is there a medical emergency? Is the womans life at risk? No woman wakes up and decides to have a termination on a whim at the naturally terminal stage of pregnancy - to do so could also endanger the woman but more importantly it is a ridiculous scenario on which to pose a question other than it doesnt deserve an answer

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

MM you appear to be on a misson along with some other posters who have a massive hang up some daft scenario about those you obviously view as just silly emotional women waking up and deciding its a good day to have a termination

This is completely untrue. None of us has said any such thing.
Cat came out with the statement that she believes 'life begins at birth'.
We have simply been trying to establish the implications of this statement according to her beliefs. Does saying that life begins at birth mean this is a cut off point for any kind of termination? Obviously the baby is still the same just before and after birth, so why say it starts there? It's part of the same argument that has been going on since post 1.

No woman wakes up and decides to have a termination on a whim at the naturally terminal stage of pregnancy - to do so could also endanger the woman but more importantly it is a ridiculous scenario on which to pose a question other than it doesnt deserve an answer

Saying that life begins at birth seems a bit ridiculous in the first place, which is why it has led to this line of questioning.
Nobody has said anything about the hypothetical woman's reasoning except to say whether it is an elective procedure or not.

Chuck Stone

deise go deo wrote: »

I think that once the process of the development of Human life begins, then the being has a right to Life.

Do you think 'maybe' or do you believe wholeheartedly?

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

......blah...........but more importantly it is a ridiculous scenario on which to pose a question other than it doesnt deserve an answer

It is no more a ridiculous a scenario than a woman killing her born child, yet the question 'should a woman (or man) be entitled to kill her born child?' would deserve an answer (and indeed, a law).
Please think, in a little bit more detail, before you reply.:rolleyes:

But in any case, what we are doing is testing the views of a person who states, very plainly, that a foetus has no rights, and then hides when asked to clarify and justify that position. We may be choosing rather unusual (although not unheard of) scenarios in order to test those beliefs, but there is nothing whatsoever wrong with such an approach.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think life begins at conception. Don't see the rationale to set it anywhere else.

Though as this thread is discussing abortion I will point out I also reluctantly accept the mother has a right to kill the child up to a certain point.

Cat Melodeon

drkpower wrote: »

But in any case, what we are doing is testing the views of a person who states, very plainly, that a foetus has no rights, and then hides when asked to clarify and justify that position. We may be choosing rather unusual (although not unheard of) scenarios in order to test those beliefs, but there is nothing whatsoever wrong with such an approach.

Test away, if that is all this is an exercise in, testing the beliefs of others rather than coming up with anything of your own. I am unfamiliar with how things work in the Humanities forum. If it is all about getting others to justify themselves without having the courage to do the same yourself, so be it. I certainly am not hiding. I believe life begins with birth. There is nothing shocking in that. I am uncomfortable with the idea of late abortions when they are not medically necessary. I don't apologise for being squeamish about that. But should they be available? For some women, yes. For what you have outlined, I can't say. I don't know. Whether or not a state or a society chooses to allow very late term abortions is the only deciding factor in whether or not the scenario you have presented could become a reality. If they choose to allow them, then a woman is entitled to abort up until the last minute. If not, then no, clearly she can't. At what point that birth (and potential child) becomes prescribed is established through the laws of the state. Regardless of the legal context, the child does not become a child until it has been born, and so it's life does not begin until birth.


Contrary to what Bluewolf has stated twice, life is not legally protected from conception, even in this country. The morning after pill is an abortofacient which is now available over the counter in Ireland. Some contraceptive pills prevent implantation rather than fertilisation and so women may be 'killing' potential lives every month without even realising it. Abortion is carried out in Irish hospitals in cases of ectopic pregnancy and other situations where the life of the woman is in immediate danger. In other situations, women are freely referred to services in England or the Netherlands. So no, life is not protected from conception, even here.

gozunda

bluewolf wrote: »

...Cat came out with the statement that she believes 'life begins at birth'.
We have simply been trying to establish the implications of this statement according to her beliefs. Does saying that life begins at birth mean this is a cut off point for any kind of termination? Obviously the baby is still the same just before and after birth, so why say it starts there? It's part of the same argument that has been going on since post 1.

Thats missing the point entirely. Cats statement ref "life begins at birth" has no implications for anyone whatsover (and this holds for the hypothethical baby too)...this 40 week 10 cm stuff its a hypothethical scenario with no basis in reality whatsover unless its scaremongering. It is simply Cats opinion which she is entitled to hold if she wishes to.

Is a fetus the same before and after birth? Good question but that is a a discussion for another thread all by itself.

bluewolf wrote: »

...Saying that life begins at birth seems a bit ridiculous in the first place, which is why it has led to this line of questioning.
Nobody has said anything about the hypothetical woman's reasoning except to say whether it is an elective procedure or not.

Mind this is your opinion that it is a "bit ridiculous". To make this hypothetical discusion valid it is imperative to explain why a woman "would just change her mind" Without this the whole argument is null and void.

drkpower wrote: »

It is no more a ridiculous a scenario than a woman killing her born child, yet the question 'should a woman (or man) be entitled to kill her born child?' would deserve an answer (and indeed, a law).
Please think, in a little bit more detail, before you reply.:rolleyes:

How in the world have we migrated to infantcide after the fact fcs? Infants get murdered as do children as to adults on a fairly regular basis...what is your point here?

Are you responsible for enacting law? Are you a medical specialist who at least can make a reasoned opinion on such complex issues. I for one will admit that I do not have such expertise. I have an opinion as I am sure you do and we are all free to do so. Leave the determining of relevant facts to those who are experts on these matters and not to some made up religous theology or makey up morality

drkpower wrote: »

..But in any case, what we are doing is testing the views of a person who states, very plainly, that a foetus has no rights, and then hides when asked to clarify and justify that position. We may be choosing rather unusual (although not unheard of) scenarios in order to test those beliefs, but there is nothing whatsoever wrong with such an approach.

Still want to know who "we is" - SPUC perhaps or some other religous orientated committee? Well the OP is entitled to her opinion end of story. BTW The scenario is not only unusual, it is implausible, in fact its a crock of horse manure.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think life begins at conception. Don't see the rationale to set it anywhere else.

Though as this thread is discussing abortion I will point out I also reluctantly accept the mother has a right to kill the child up to a certain point.

Well once gain that is opinion only and thats fine but expect everyone else to agree with it. And IF life does begins at conception (but before implanting) what about the rescuing all those little collection of cells that are regularly flushed down the kazzi without anyone knowing any different?

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Thats missing the point entirely. Cats statement ref "life begins at birth" has no implications for anyone whatsover (and this holds for the hypothethical baby too)...this 40 week 10 cm stuff its a hypothethical scenario with no basis in reality whatsover unless its scaremongering.

We're on a discussion forum. Of course it's hypothetical.

It is simply Cats opinion which she is entitled to hold if she wishes to.

Please do not go down the lazy route of "spout my opinion and run away". If she wants to make a statement on a public discussion forum then she will get questions on it. Simple as that. If she does not want to discuss it, nor do you, then get a blog. Nobody said she can't have an opinion, we're just trying to find out more about it.

Is a fetus the same before and after birth? Good question but that is a a discussion for another thread all by itself.

Considering the topic of this thread, no, I don't think it is.

Mind this is your opinion that it is a "bit ridiculous". To make this hypothetical discusion valid it is imperative to explain why a woman "would just change her mind" Without this the whole argument is null and void.

Of course it's my opinion. Who else's opinion would it be?
Are you going to contribute anything other than redundant declarations?

Still want to know who "we is" - SPUC perhaps or some other religous orientated committee? Well the OP is entitled to her opinion end of story.

:rolleyes:

Rushing in to absurdly yell bias and "it's my opinion la la la". Great.

gozunda

bluewolf wrote: »

We're on a discussion forum. Of course it's hypothetical.

Sorry that does not follow. The use of facts or real life events would be a better way to determine some truths on the subject of "when life begins" than some fairy story invented for scaremongering purposes (eg Mad Woman Gets Abortion During Delivery!)...otherwise you might want to visit the fantasy role playing section - they do hypothetical scenarios very well (the weirder the better I hear)

bluewolf wrote: »

Please do not go down the lazy route of "spout my opinion and run away". If she wants to make a statement on a public discussion forum then she will get questions on it. Simple as that. If she does not want to discuss it, nor do you, then get a blog. Nobody said she can't have an opinion, we're just trying to find out more about it.

bluewolf wrote: »

Of course it's my opinion. Who else's opinion would it be?

Well done BW you have just contradicted yourself beautifully. Reductio ad absurdum indeed. Believe it or not the nice thing about an opinion is you dont need proofs or a logical argument to back it up eg I like Strawberry Jam! I dont have to explain why I like strawberry Jam - this is an opinion! . Cat has made it clear that her opinion is that life begins at birth, however for your ilk to then question her opinion by presenting some crazy hypothetical scenario that bares no relationship to any reality and demanding that people (including Cat) make value judgements based on that scenario is about as useful as a whole load of used toilet paper.

So do tell (I have asked before) are ye some type of deputation from SPUC or allied group. I ask because ye appear to be all sprouting from the same little prayer book.

Oh and any input on how do we rescue "life" that gets flushed without notice on a daily basis?