Should a foetus have the right to life?

SusieBlue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Presumably you don't mind when the state arrest people who's actions you disagree with? I don't even mean the big ticket items like murder or rape, i presume you endorse the right of the state to arrest drink drivers and tax cheats etc? We all curb our individual rights to live in a functioning society.

For much of human history landless peasants (ie, us) had **** all rights either. We accrued rights over a painfully long time. We've a long way to go in giving rights to other sentient beings like animals etc.

As for society being fine before 1983, there was so much riding (and quite a lot of extra marital riding) going on that we had enough surplus people to send to mother and child homes, send into religious orders and send overseas. It was a profoundly sick society across a number of levels, where a husband could not be charged with raping his wife, to take one charming example. We've come a long way, but we've a long way to go.

I didn’t mean literally arrested so that tangent was quite unnecessary, perhaps a better word would have been restricted.
I should not be restricted in the control over my own body just because a stranger has different morals to me. What a stranger believes on the matter is irrelevant.
When it comes to my body and my life, that decision should be mine and mine alone. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

As for your second point, I thought it was quite clear that I was talking about society being fine and functional in terms of the unborn not having any constitutional rights, but you’re intentionally moving the goal posts. You are answering a point I didn’t make.
Marital rape and mother and baby homes are completely irrelevant to that and are a topic for a different thread, so I’m not going down that rabbit hole with you.

Hotblack Desiato

In other words, Harvey, and the other Harvey, you have control over your own uterus. \o/ You have no control over anyone else's uterus.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

I didn’t mean literally arrested so that tangent was quite unnecessary, perhaps a better word would have been restricted.
I should not be restricted in the control over my own body just because a stranger has different morals to me. What a stranger believes on the matter is irrelevant.
When it comes to my body and my life, that decision should be mine and mine alone. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

You are still restricted, abortion post 12 weeks is illegal. Afaik, it's illegal for you to sell your organs too. It would be illegal for me to offer you money for sex, you are restricted from selling it (in that regard). It is illegal for you to consume certain drugs etc. Clearly, you still have restricted control over your own body.

The states places numerous restrictions on everyone's freedom, there's nothing ludicrous about it, it's how society functions. The debate is the extent of the States right to impose restrictions on people as much as the state's right to deny a foetus rights.

I'm not splitting hairs either, these are important (to me) points. Why should abortion post 20, 30 weeks be illegal, why shouldn't people be allowed pay to use someone's body for sex, why do we prohibit what drugs a person can take? What gives the State the authority to limit people in that way?

uptherebels

Fast Twitch wrote: »

Not failed arguments, you just don't agree with them.

No side will come up with something new. Some will believe a foetus is unique and precious life, something to be cherished. Others feel the woman's right to choice is paramount.

Neither argument fails. Both are passionately held views. Just because a country voted one way in 1983 and another in 2018 will not stifle debate, one way or the other.

That, my friend, is democracy.

plenty of failed arguments, just have a read back through all the abortion threads leading up to the vote
Not just me, the country, hence why the 8th was removed.
I havn't said or implied anything about stifling debate, but carry on:rolleyes:

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

You are still restricted, abortion post 12 weeks is illegal. Afaik, it's illegal for you to sell your organs too. It would be illegal for me to offer you money for sex, you are restricted from selling it (in that regard). It is illegal for you to consume certain drugs etc. Clearly, you still have restricted control over your own body.

The states places numerous restrictions on everyone's freedom, there's nothing ludicrous about it, it's how society functions. The debate is the extent of the States right to impose restrictions on people as much as the state's right to deny a foetus rights.

I'm not splitting hairs either, these are important (to me) points. Why should abortion post 20, 30 weeks be illegal, why shouldn't people be allowed pay to use someone's body for sex, why do we prohibit what drugs a person can take? What gives the State the authority to limit people in that way?

There's absolutely no point in even debating this if you keep persistently moving the goal posts. I won't entertain it.
The majority of countries have some form of termination service available to its citizens. It is a medical need.
There is absolutely no comparison between legalising a necessary medical procedure and prostitution, which remains illegal in most places.
I can't believe I even have to point that out.

The point I was making was that abortion up to 12 weeks shouldn't be illegal just because you disagree with it.
The legislation was recommended by the citizens assembly and won in a landslide vote. The people knew what they were voting for.
So why on earth should their choice be restricted just because some No voters disagree with that choice?
What makes their opinion on the matter more pertinent or valid? It doesn't.

The state denied the unborn any and all rights up till '83.
This isn't a new concept, so its baffling as to why you can't get your head around it.
Actual people should take precedence over potential people, unless they themselves choose otherwise.
If you believe an 8 week gestated fetus is of the same worth & value as a living, breathing adult woman then I have no problem with that, but I disagree with you. You shouldn't get to inflict that belief on me or on my pregnancy.

The current system allows each person to make up their own mind on the matter. If you disagree with abortion, you are under no obligation to have one. But the choice is now there for those that need it. You have no right whatsoever to interfere with that choice.

Bigbagofcans

Reading this thread is like reading all the other ones. Please merge them all. Or better still, the NO campaigners stop starting thread after thread.

TheRepentent

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Reading this thread is like reading all the other ones. Please merge them all. Or better still, the NO campaigners stop starting thread after thread.

Ah its worth it, if just to watch the anti-choicers cry crocodile tears over clumps of cells in other peoples bodies.

Guess some people don't like being to told to feck of and mind their business.

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

What gives the State the authority to limit people in that way?

We do. We voted for it. Indirectly, we vote for all the things you mentioned by electing or re-electing the parties that make these decisions. If they are so out of touch with what the majority of people want, we can vote them out.

I take a lot of your points - there is an element of inconsistency in the 'my body my choice' argument as most people who believe that don't actually believe it until 38 weeks for example. But it's a slogan, rather than an actual position.

And most people who voted do believe the slogan within limits, and are happy with 12 weeks. For some that might be the upper limit, others might be happy with 20 or 24 weeks.

Not everybody is happy with it obviously, but the public were asked their opinion, and they gave their opinion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

If you value life, and most people do, the question of when it begins can never be separated from this debate.

The thing is most people do NOT seem to "value life". We end it and kill it, pretty much on a whim, all the time. With drugs, pesticides, insecticides, in the production of products like meat and paper, swatting flies and wasps in our house and much much more. Our species is very much in the business of not valuing life all the time.

So it seems we specifically value Human Life not just "life". And where this becomes interesting to me is that when you ask people to list the attributes that make Human Life more worthy of consideration than any other life..... they tend to list exactly the attribute(s) that the fetus at 0-16 weeks lacks.

Not just slightly lacks. But ENTIRELY lacks.

I am all for valuing the fetus once those attributes arise in them. Hence I believe abortion by choice needs a cut off time. But valuing it morally and ethically BEFORE it attains them, but rather on the potential of it attaining them, makes zero sense to me.

Ironicname

TheRepentent wrote:

Ah its worth it, if just to watch the anti-choicers cry crocodile tears over clumps of cells in other peoples bodies.

That's a disgusting comment.

As someone who has been through the trauma of abortion, miscarriage and the joys of childbirth, calling any pregnancy, at any stage, a clump of cells in other people's bodies is disturbed, insulting, insensitive and just plain ignorant.

Especially when twinned with the phrase crocodile tears.

Just a nasty, unnecessary comment that for someone who pretends to care about women, has no idea how certain other women would feel by describing their loss as merely a clump of cells.

notobtuse

SusieBlue wrote: »

When it comes to my body and my life, that decision should be mine and mine alone. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

But it's not just your life, it's someone else’s life that is unique and different than yours.

TheRepentent

Ironicname wrote: »

That's a disgusting comment.

Not at all. Thats all a fetus is..an unsentient clump of cells

As someone who has been through the trauma of abortion, miscarriage and the joys of childbirth,

Thats your business...for me and my ex wife we had 2 abortions and there was no trauma for us (2 great weekends away in Liverpool).

calling any pregnancy, at any stage, a clump of cells in other people's bodies is disturbed, insulting, insensitive and just plain ignorant.

Get over yourself.

someone who pretends to care about women, has no idea how certain other women would feel by describing their loss as merely a clump of cells.

Oh I care about women which is why I voted yes(I don't particularily give a fuk about a new user on boards.ie who makes a beeline for an abortion thread) If you're easily upset maybe going into an abortion thread isn't for you, especially if as you claim you've had miscarriages,abotions and children.

As for the crocodile tears..thats a correct term to use when referring to anti-choicers. For example the RCC and the zombie worshippers on boards.ie don't give a sh1te about the unborn , it's all about control of womens bodies(also rumours doing the rounds at the time was that they were worried that the pool of kids to rape would be vastly reduced)

SusieBlue

notobtuse wrote: »

But it's not just your life, it's someone else’s life that is unique and different than yours.

While it depends on my body to grow to a point where it can survive independant of me, it should be up to me what happens to it. The 12 week limit is the fairest compromise.

If a man is dying on the street next to you and desperately needs a blood transfusion to survive, you cannot be compelled to donate blood if you don't want to.

Despite the fact that an actual person is going to die if you do not donate, your bodily autonomy trumps their right to live, so I don't see why a woman sudden loses that bodily autonomy when pregnant.
Particularly when pregnancy is far more emotionally and physically taxing than a simple blood donation, which is over in a matter of minutes.

Actual people should take precedence over potential people, unless they specifically choose otherwise.
Most pregnant women the world over do this voluntarily anyway.
The choice is there for those who cannot.

notobtuse

SusieBlue wrote: »

While it depends on my body to grow to a point where it can survive independant of me, it should be up to me what happens to it. The 12 week limit is the fairest compromise.

If a man, who has a unique life different to yours, is dying on the street next to you and desperately needs a blood transfusion to survive, you cannot be compelled to donate blood if you don't want to.

Despite the fact that an actual person is going to die if you do not donate, your bodily autonomy trumps their right to live, so I don't see why a woman sudden loses that bodily autonomy when pregnant.
Particularly when pregnancy is far more emotionally and physically taxing than a simple blood donation, which is over in a matter of minutes.

Actual people should take precedence over potential people, unless they specifically choose otherwise.
Most pregnant women the world over do this voluntarily anyway.
The choice is there for those who cannot.

No baby, after they’re born, can live without help from others.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

No baby, after they’re born, can live without help from others.

we generally dont abort babies after they are born.

Ironicname

TheRepentent wrote:

Not at all. Thats all a fetus is..an unsentient clump of cells

Until what stage?

TheRepentent wrote:

Thats your business...for me and my ex wife we had 2 abortions and there was no trauma for us (2 great weekends away in Liverpool).

I'm sure you did. I'm glad. Also glad that you aren't together anymore if travelling to Liverpool for abortions is what both of you would describe as great.

TheRepentent wrote:

Get over yourself.

I'm unsure as to why sharing my experience and calling you out for insensitive comments makes me need to get over myself.

TheRepentent wrote:

Oh I care about women which is why I voted yes(I don't particularily give a fuk about a new user on boards.ie who makes a beeline for an abortion thread) If you're easily upset maybe going into an abortion thread isn't for you, especially if as you claim you've had miscarriages,abotions and children.

I didn't realise there was other forums I needed to engage in before I was allowed to comment on abortion. I don't want you to give a **** about me. I hardly would expect it from someone who enjoys an abortion holiday

I'm not easily upset. I just think what you said was unnecessary and mean spirited.

And my "claim" to have experienced what I said is valid. You have no reason to believe or not believe me.

SusieBlue

notobtuse wrote: »

No baby, after they’re born, can live without help from others.

And your point is?
Anyone can look after a baby. The mother, the father, even a stranger on the street can nurture and care for a newborn.

Unfortunately science hasn't progressed to the point where we can transfer pregnancies.
Only the pregnant woman can gestate the pregnancy. Not the father, a friend, or a stanger on the street.
It needs her body to grow to the point where it can survive without her.
Only her, no one else can fulfil the role. It has to be her body. Only she can make that sacrifice. Whereas anyone can look after a baby.
So they are two completely incomparable situations, and not a very well thought out argument.

Ironicname

Ironicname wrote: »

I hardly would expect it from someone who enjoys an abortion holiday.

A rather callous remark. This is not a trivial matter for women, but a difficult journey that can have devastating emotional implications.

notobtuse

SusieBlue wrote: »

And your point is?
Anyone can look after a baby. The mother, the father, even a stranger on the street can nurture and care for a newborn.

Unfortunately science hasn't progressed to the point where we can transfer pregnancies.
Only the pregnant woman can gestate the pregnancy. Not the father, a friend, or a stanger on the street.
It needs her body to grow to the point where it can survive without her.
Only her, no one else can fulfil the role. It has to be her body. Only she can make that sacrifice. Whereas anyone can look after a baby.
So they are two completely incomparable situations, and not a very well thought out argument.

And someone can and will care for the baby after it's born if the mother doesn't wish to. There are millions willing to adopt.

Ironicname

Deleted User wrote:

A rather callous remark. This is not a trivial matter for women, but a difficult journey that can have devastating emotional implications.

I can't see how that is callous in response to the below, where the poster admits to having two great trips to Liverpool to get abortions.

I think that's callous.

I agree. I didn't enjoy my trip to London.

TheRepentent wrote:

Thats your business...for me and my ex wife we had 2 abortions and there was no trauma for us (2 great weekends away in Liverpool).

TheRepentent wrote:

If you're easily upset maybe going into an abortion thread isn't for you, especially if as you claim you've had miscarriages,abotions and children.

Bigbagofcans

notobtuse wrote: »

And someone can and will care for the baby after it's born if the mother doesn't wish to. There are millions willing to adopt.

Very naïve to think this way.

In 2017 only 52 adoptions were finalised in Ireland.

SusieBlue

notobtuse wrote: »

And someone can and will care for the baby after it's born if the mother doesn't wish to. There are millions willing to adopt.

No there are not. There were 5 infants domestically adopted in Ireland according to the most recent statistics (2016) on the CSO website.
Please do some actual research before throwing out such uneducated solutions.

Regardless, that advice is of no use to a woman who cannot stay pregnant.

SusieBlue

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Very naïve to think this way.

In 2017 only 52 adoptions were finalised in Ireland.

Exactly, and most of those were inter-familiar and step parent adoptions. Fewer people than ever are having children these days, with many opting not to have any at all, let alone looking to adopt.

notobtuse

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Very naïve to think this way.

In 2017 only 52 adoptions were finalised in Ireland.

Hundreds of thousands of US citizens on waiting lists to adopt would be overjoyed to be able to adopt a baby from Ireland.

SusieBlue

notobtuse wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands of US citizens on waiting lists to adopt would be overjoyed to be able to adopt a baby from Ireland.

That sounds very familiar, like it happened before. Maybe we could open up homes for these women to give birth in? And they could do some light chores and cleaning to pay for their board and medical care? Before the Americans come to adopt their new baby?
Absolutely genius idea.

FYI, there are literally millions of children stuck in the US foster care system. American couples genuinely looking to adopt should start there instead of loking to step back in time to the Magdelene era in Ireland. None of this has any relevance to the thread.

notobtuse

SusieBlue wrote: »

That sounds very familiar, like it happened before. Maybe we could open up homes for these women to give birth in? And they could do some light chores and cleaning to pay for their board and medical care? Before the Americans come to adopt their new baby?
Absolutely genius idea.

FYI, there are literally millions of children stuck in the US foster care system. American couples genuinely looking to adopt should start there instead of loking to step back in time to the Magdelene era in Ireland. None of this has any relevance to the thread.

We took in a teenage girl of color who was facing foster care that she would be kicked out of as soon as she reached 18 years old. We didn’t go the foster care route… just took her in. Helped her with college applications and she’ll be attending a college this fall at no cost due to her financial situation and excellent grades.

There are those that DO go the foster care route and those that wish to adopt a newborn. All fine people, and not evil because they believe life, even unborn life, is precious.

SusieBlue

notobtuse wrote: »

We took in a teenage girl of color who was facing foster care that she would be kicked out of as soon as she reached 18 years old. We didn’t go the foster care route… just took her in. Helped her with college applications and she’ll be attending a college this fall at no cost due to her financial situation and excellent grades.

There are those that DO go the foster care route and those that wish to adopt a newborn. All fine people, and not evil because they believe life, even unborn life, is precious.

You can believe whatever you want, but those beliefs are not a good enough reason to deprive another person of their bodily autonomy. Those beliefs are also no more valid nor pertinent than mine, so you should not get to force them on me.

What you believe to be true and your opinion on life is not a valid reason to force someone who does not wish to be pregnant to remain so.

TheRepentent

Ironicname wrote: »

I didn't enjoy my trip to London.

I'd recommend giving Liverpool ago..a lot better than London imho once you get over the accent.

dudara

notobtuse wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands of US citizens on waiting lists to adopt would be overjoyed to be able to adopt a baby from Ireland.

And yet anecdotally, I know a couple from Ireland who adopted (twice) in the US as they couldn’t get a child through the Irish system.

This adoption spiel is an utter fantasy.

iamwhoiam

notobtuse wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands of US citizens on waiting lists to adopt would be overjoyed to be able to adopt a baby from Ireland.

Oh great , lets go back to 1965 and sell the babies to the USA . I remember visiting a mother and baby home in Co Meath and rows and rows of babies ready to be shipped off . The nuns happily excepted a donation for their troubles