Should a foetus have the right to life?

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I believe an unborn baby is a human being and thusly should be afforded the rights provided to human beings. That you find that opinion disgusting says more about you than it does me.

and yet in all of the threads on abortion (and there have been many) nobody on your side has been able to substantiate WHY they think that. they just do and everybody else should just accept it.

uptherebels

notobtuse wrote: »

Hard to believe there wasn't a fight in England before the repeal of abortions.

Irish women travelling to England!!!!
Where was the fight here?

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

It has a bearing on the OP's question of "Should a foetus have the right to life?"

No it doesn't. It has no bearing on whether a feotus has a right to life. none whatsover. You either think it has a right to life or it doesn't. what planned parenthood do in the states has no bearing on the answer.

SusieBlue

notobtuse wrote: »

I believe an unborn baby is a human being and thusly should be afforded the rights provided to human beings. That you find that opinion disgusting says more about you than it does me.

Not at the expense of OTHER human beings though. That's where the bone of contention lies.
Potential people should never be afforded rights at the expense of Actual people (unless they selflessly choose to).

And again, I respect your right to believe that. You just don't get to force everyone else to believe it too.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and yet in all of the threads on abortion (and there have been many) nobody on your side has been able to substantiate WHY they think that. they just do and everybody else should just accept it.

According to science a fetus is a human being.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

According to science a fetus is a human being.

It is certainly human but not everything human counts as a human being.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is certainly human but not everything human counts as a human being.

This makes no sense. Or are you saying their should be a hierarchy with humans. I think the Nazis tried that.

Turbohymac

Ok susieblue..my mistake for not properly clarifying abortion possibly allowed in cases of rape but much earlier than 12 weeks ..and at least give some respect to the unborn..

SusieBlue

Turbohymac wrote: »

Ok susieblue..my mistake for not properly clarifying abortion possibly allowed in cases of rape but much earlier than 12 weeks ..and at least give some respect to the unborn..

If a woman's menstrual cycle is predictable & consistent she will find out she is pregnant at 4 weeks along. Most women do not find out until 5 or 6 weeks, depending on the length of their cycle.
That leaves at best 8 weeks (in a minority of cases) or 6 weeks (most cases) to decide how they are going to proceed and get an abortion if necessary.
A small number of women, who find out when they are further along, have even less time to consider their options.

Its not like they have 12 weeks of decision making from the moment they find out they are pregnant. Best case scenario they have 8, but as I said, for most its more like 5-6 weeks.

Narrowing that window of decsion making any further will actually have the opposite effect, it will add extra pressure and duress onto an already vulnerable woman, who might end up panicking and making a choice she might regret.

Calina

notobtuse wrote: »

The value of life should be everyone's concern.

If I have understood correctly, you are based in the US.

Life is not valued there. I say this because of your obscene gun fetish. Any country that cared about life would not sell guns in supermarkets. The change to federal policy on the death penalty lately is likewise sickening.

A pregnancy does not guarantee a live birth. Someone who is born and not dead is guaranteed alive.

Can you see the difference?

jim o doom

My answer to the "should a potential human completely incapable of life outside a womb be entitled to the right of life" is a resounding no.

Whatever your reason for this thread, the entire argument is a ridiculous and typical attempt of the pro-life crowd to equate the life of a foetus (many of which die naturally before birth) to the life of a functioning adult.

The only possible outcome of granting IT rights, would be them conflicting with the rights of an adult. An adult who is not just an incubator.

jim o doom

notobtuse wrote: »

This makes no sense. Or are you saying their should be a hierarchy with humans. I think the Nazis tried that.

Quck jump on the everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi bandwagon, I believe there's hardly ANYONE on there yet.

notobtuse

jim o doom wrote: »

My answer to the "should a potential human completely incapable of life outside a womb be entitled to the right of life" is a resounding no.

Whatever your reason for this thread, the entire argument is a ridiculous and typical attempt of the pro-life crowd to equate the life of a foetus (many of which die naturally before birth) to the life of a functioning adult.

The only possible outcome of granting IT rights, would be them conflicting with the rights of an adult. An adult who is not just an incubator.

What if science finds a way that a 'potential human' IS capable of life outside a womb? Somehow I think the goalposts will just be moved to some other excuse.

notobtuse

Calina wrote: »

If I have understood correctly, you are based in the US.

Life is not valued there. I say this because of your obscene gun fetish. Any country that cared about life would not sell guns in supermarkets. The change to federal policy on the death penalty lately is likewise sickening.

A pregnancy does not guarantee a live birth. Someone who is born and not dead is guaranteed alive.

Can you see the difference?

The majority of gun deaths in the US are from suicide. Even without guns those who are intent on ending their own lives will find a way. Gun ownership is a right in the US and the Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize it was in large part a method of keeping our freedoms and liberties.

jim o doom

notobtuse wrote: »

What if science finds a way that a 'potential human' IS capable of life outside a womb? Somehow I think the goalposts will just be moved to some other excuse.

We could spend our entire lives on "what ifs". What if babies could be born completely free of humans, no original egg, no sperm, just entirely manufactured humans.

What if this, what if the other. The fact is - we are here, now and in reality. A POSSIBLE human is not a human.

As stated by other posters, TONS of fetuses die of natural causes long before birth. Conflating the rights of a fetus with an adult is a pile of nonsense.

And also - the majority of gun deaths being suicides.. ok lets ignore that bit and move on to the mass school shootings and mass murders. Tons of innocent people killed.

In Ireland only farmers have guns, 22 caliber rifles and shotguns. No mass shootings.. and amazingly WE STILL HAVE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

EDIT

Farms have guns, the police have guns, the army has guns and a small number of criminals also have guns. And I guess some olympic competitors and people in gun clubs. The privately owned weapons are by and large, small caliber and kept in clubs.

jim o doom

notobtuse wrote: »

Somehow I think the goalposts will just be moved to some other excuse.

I'm going to take both of these items on their own; first of all nobody really cares what you think is going to happen, it's postulation based on biased information. It is not based on any sort of fact or reality.

Secondly; moved to some other "EXCUSE". Women getting abortions because they need them is not an excuse, it's a difficult and terrible choice they make for very personal reasons.

The fact that you are cold hearted and thoughtless to refer to it as an "excuse" shows you for a very narrow minded and heartless individual.

Faugheen

Turbohymac wrote: »

Unfortunately these days it's all down to the womans choice..definitely gone too far and makes unborn in general Worthless..very sad indeed.. unless rape yes the unborn should have rights and be protected..not ejected

And do you know how they protect women who have been raped? By placing a law which allows abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks.

TheRepentent

jim o doom wrote: »

no original egg, no sperm, just entirely manufactured humans

We could harvest them for body parts and not have to rely on someone dying in a car crash.

In Ireland only farmers have guns, 22 caliber rifles and shotguns. No mass shootings

We also have a lot of people that play videogames which that orange muppet Trump (and the trumptards that parrot him)blamed for the latest mass shooting.

notobtuse

So let me see if I understand the reasoning here… Nobody should infringe on a woman’s right to get an abortion because it is her decision, but it is okay to take away a person’s right to bear arms because others think they know what is best for them?

Ironicname

Bigbagofcans wrote:

You were being callous by saying you were glad that he and the ex-wife weren't together anymore.

People that actively enjoy trips away to have an abortion aren't exactly people who I think should be together.

Nothing callous in that.

jim o doom

notobtuse wrote: »

So let me see if I understand the reasoning here… Nobody should infringe on a woman’s right to get an abortion because it is her decision, but it is okay to take away a person’s right to bear arms because others think they know what is best for them?

Your name is notobtuse but I'm starting to think that you are in fact extremely obtuse.

Please explain to me how a womans choice about what happens to her body and which does not enable her to kill large amounts born, functioning adult humans, is the equivalent of allowing the public own automatic rifles which enables them to kill large amounts of born, functioning adult, innocent civilians quickly and easily.

Go on, spell it out for me if you are capable.

notobtuse

jim o doom wrote: »

Your name is notobtuse but I'm starting to think that you are in fact extremely obtuse.

Please explain to me how a womans choice about what happens to her body and which does not enable her to kill large amounts born, functioning adult humans, is the equivalent of allowing the public own automatic rifles which enables them to kill large amounts of born, functioning adult, innocent civilians quickly and easily.

Go on, spell it out for me if you are capable.

I’m just trying to establish if it is okay for others to decide what is best for you regarding your ability to make choices.

Faugheen

Ironicname wrote: »

People that actively enjoy trips away to have an abortion aren't exactly people who I think should be together.

Nothing callous in that.

‘I think...’

Exactly the point. Just because you don’t think it’s callous doesn’t mean it’s not.

You have continuously picked fights with pro-choice people in this thread while claiming to have voted yes yourself.

You are the biggest liar in this thread. Earlier you referred to those who voted yes as ‘pro-abortion’ yet you then stated you voted in favour of repeal to protect yourself and look holier than thou.

Stop treating everyone here like they’re stupid and/or beneath you because they don’t agree with you.

jim o doom

notobtuse wrote: »

I’m just trying to establish if it is okay for others to decide what is best for you regarding your ability to make choices.

What the actual..?

In one case, you give an adult human the ability to choose what happens to their own body versus the right of a "potential human" - which may or may not come to term with or without the intervention of an abortion.

In the other case you either give, remove or partially allow an adult human the right to own a weapon. The weapon can potentially cause a lot of harm (large caliber fully automatic) or very little (.22 single fire small rifle).

In all societies we remove the right of the average person to kill another ADULT person, a person born and functioning without the aid of a "living incubator".

Therefore - in some cases allowing people a choice makes sense, particularly where there is little chance of that choice harming other, functioning and born humans.. like letting someone drive a car despite the inherent dangers.

In other cases it makes sense to limit people's choices, as those choices regularly lead to the harm of other functioning humans.. like large scale murder by automatic weaponry of innocent civilians.

If you think it's either CHOICE IS GOOD or CHOICE IS BAD, you are incorrect. The world is a lot more complex than that.

TheRepentent

Faugheen wrote: »

‘I think...’

Exactly the point. Just because you don’t think it’s callous doesn’t mean it’s not.

You have continuously picked fights with pro-choice people in this thread while claiming to have voted yes yourself.

You are the biggest liar in this thread. Earlier you referred to those who voted yes as ‘pro-abortion’ yet you then stated you voted in favour of repeal to protect yourself and look holier than thou.

Stop treating everyone here like they’re stupid and/or beneath you because they don’t agree with you.

Ah her mask has slipped(but again this type of behaviour has been done before on previous abortion threads by Anti-Choicers)

notobtuse

jim o doom wrote: »

What the actual..?

In one case, you give an adult human the ability to choose what happens to their own body versus the right of a "potential human" - which may or may not come to term with or without the intervention of an abortion.

In the other case you either give, remove or partially allow an adult human the right to own a weapon. The weapon can potentially cause a lot of harm (large caliber fully automatic) or very little (.22 single fire small rifle).

In all societies we remove the right of the average person to kill another ADULT person, a person born and functioning without the aid of a "living incubator".

Therefore - in some cases allowing people a choice makes sense, particularly where there is little chance of that choice harming other, functioning and born humans.. like letting someone drive a car despite the inherent dangers.

In other cases it makes sense to limit people's choices, as those choices regularly lead to the harm of other functioning humans.. like large scale murder by automatic weaponry of innocent civilians.

If you think it's either CHOICE IS GOOD or CHOICE IS BAD, you are incorrect. The world is a lot more complex than that.

Of course the world is complex. And your premise is incorrect… Guns also protect lives and freedom and liberty. Both abortion and the Right to own guns are current Rights here in the US (although one is provided us in the Bill Of Rights and the other is based on faulty logic of a handful of judges.. but has not been allowed to be challenged as of yet as SCOTUS continues to refuse the challenge to be heard). SO, it seems it is okay for your side to say it is disgusting to fight to overturn one Right, and admirable to fight against another Right.

Ironicname

Faugheen wrote:

‘I think...’

Yes because I have my opinion. I wasn't stating fact

Faugheen wrote:

Exactly the point. Just because you don’t think it’s callous doesn’t mean it’s not.

In my opinion it wasn't.

Faugheen wrote:

You have continuously picked fights with pro-choice people in this thread while claiming to have voted yes yourself.

I have asked questions because I think the subject deserves to be questiined. I did vote yes. I wasn't sure I was going to but I did.

Faugheen wrote:

You are the biggest liar in this thread. Earlier you referred to those who voted yes as ‘pro-abortion’ yet you then stated you voted in favour of repeal to protect yourself and look holier than thou.

People who voted yes are pro-choice. That choice is whether to abort or not. It was explained to me why people say it as an attack. I withdrew it and didn't repeat it when explained to me civilly

Faugheen wrote:

Stop treating everyone here like they’re stupid and/or beneath you because they don’t agree with you.

I haven't once done so. With perhaps the exception of one person who you've told me I was callous to. I disagree.

And hey, Faugheen, practice what you preach. Don't act like you can tell me what I need to stop doing. This is a discussion forum and I have a right to voice my opinion without being called a liar.

And the sheer hypocrisy of you claiming that I treat people as idiots for not believing my rhetoric... Astounding.

I'm more than happy to not interact with you again so I'll leave it at that.

Ironicname

TheRepentent wrote:

Ah her mask has slipped(but again this type of behaviour has been done before on previous abortion threads by Anti-Choicers)

Anti choicer. Ha.

Faugheen

Ironicname wrote: »

Yes because I have my opinion. I wasn't stating fact



In my opinion it wasn't.



I have asked questions because I think the subject deserves to be questiined. I did vote yes. I wasn't sure I was going to but I did.



People who voted yes are pro-choice. That choice is whether to abort or not. It was explained to me why people say it as an attack. I withdrew it and didn't repeat it when explained to me civilly



I haven't once done so. With perhaps the exception of one person who you've told me I was callous to. I disagree.

And hey, Faugheen, practice what you preach. Don't act like you can tell me what I need to stop doing. This is a discussion forum and I have a right to voice my opinion without being called a liar.

And the sheer hypocrisy of you claiming that I treat people as idiots for not believing my rhetoric... Astounding.

I'm more than happy to not interact with you again so I'll leave it at that.

You do treat people like they’re stupid, because you belittle them under the cloud of your claim that you voted yes.

You didn’t vote yes. Stop lying. Everyone can see through your nonsense (except maybe the pro-lifers, which is quite telling).

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

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'm not saying you are, but saying rights accrue simply because of the will of the people is a fairly dangerous road to go down. What if the majority of the people decided to turn on one religious grouping, passed laws to restrict them from working, to disinherit them, and ultimately render them "Stateless"? Sure, it would be legal to do so, but it would be objectionable all the same.

If so, rights do not, imo, derive solely from the will of the people.