Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should a foetus have the right to life?
Options
Comments
-
Im a little late joining this discussion, so apologies if this question has been asked/discussed. but I'm curious - at what point does a fetus become a person?0
-
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.
So you would only limit it to cases of medical need?
I am more interested in where rights accrue than whatever side of this argument you are on. If we agree it's fair that 12 weeks is the cut-off point, are we as a society saying a foetus has rights after 12 weeks? Why not 20, 30 etc?
Also, if you truly believe in bodily autonomy, people should be allowed sell their bodies for sex if they so choose, it is their choice. Maybe they should even be allowed sell organs etc. You might not like it, but as you repeatedly have pointed out, it's not your body so why care?0 -
Faugheen wrote:You do treat people like they’re stupid, because you belittle them under the cloud of your claim that you voted yes.Faugheen wrote:You didn’t vote yes. Stop lying. Everyone can see through your nonsense (except maybe the pro-lifers, which is quite telling).
I voted yes. Please stop saying I didn't. You are deliberately misrepresenting me after I have told you what I voted. You can choose not to believe me, but you have no reason to claim I belittle people under any false pretence.
It's ok to have voted yes but still have apprehensions about the morality of abortion.
Or should yes voters never challenge the reasons why they voted the way they did?
I was asked what propaganda the yes side espoused during the campaign...
It was exactly this... If you even think of reasons that some may be voting no, you are an uncle Tom.
Thankfully Faugheen, not everyone is like you and so needlessly aggressive. There have been a few posters here that have made me question a few beliefs I had.
You, and your dismissive confrontational posting do nothing to help your cause.
You might think I'm a liar, but I know your last few posts have been, at the very best, completely untrue.0 -
No.0
-
It’s been answered in different ways by different individuals. Some say from conception. Some say not until birth. Some say 12 weeks, some 26 weeks, and some contend when a heartbeat is detected. Science goes with conception.Im a little late joining this discussion, so apologies if this question has been asked/discussed. but I'm curious - at what point does a fetus become a person?You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
Advertisement
-
Voltex wrote:Im a little late joining this discussion, so apologies if this question has been asked/discussed. but I'm curious - at what point does a fetus become a person?
I have no idea. That's why it was a difficult choice for me when I voted.0 -
It’s been answered in different ways by different individuals. Some say from conception. Some say not until birth. Some say 12 weeks, some 26 weeks, and some contend when a heartbeat is detected. Science goes with conception.
This is what got me...does passage through the vaginal canal suddenly confer person-hood?
Life is life...applying a temporal condition to it is like suggesting a 70 year old is less worthy of living than a 30 year old.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 71647
-
-
Sure thing…Citation required for your last sentence.The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
I agree with you in some ways but what some people don't seem to understand is that the right to life is now gone from the constitution and will never return so there will never again be a popular vote.0 -
lol
https://lozierinstitute.org/about/
:rolleyes:We desire and seek that the benefits of modern medicine and the wealth of nations be put to the service of human life and that the scourges of abortion, physical disease, euthanasia and human exploitation will be diminished and ultimately overcome.
Do you honestly think posting that sh1te will get a free pass?Wanna support genocide?Cheer on the murder of women and children?The Ruzzians aren't rapey enough for you? Morally bankrupt cockroaches and islamaphobes , Israel needs your help NOW!!
0 -
Whatever. Science does not take a position.... it deals with facts. Here is info and articles all stating the same thing from elite liberal Princeton University... for your reading pleasure. Ivy league schools are about as far from conservative thinking as you can get.TheRepentent wrote: »lol
https://lozierinstitute.org/about/
:rolleyes:
Do you honestly think posting that sh1te will get a free pass?
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.htmlYou can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
Summarise them both for me , just to prove you've read them yourself and haven't just copy/pasted from a google search or checking on US relgious sites.
EDIT: just in case you forgot here's your claim--> "Science goes with conception"Wanna support genocide?Cheer on the murder of women and children?The Ruzzians aren't rapey enough for you? Morally bankrupt cockroaches and islamaphobes , Israel needs your help NOW!!
0 -
Okay... but one is scientific findings and the other is summaries of articles by mostly Embryology scientists on when human life begins. Bottom line from all cited scientific sources is human life begins at conceptionTheRepentent wrote: »Summarise them both for me , just to prove you've read them yourself and haven't just copy/pasted from a google search or checking on US relgious sites.You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
Wanna support genocide?Cheer on the murder of women and children?The Ruzzians aren't rapey enough for you? Morally bankrupt cockroaches and islamaphobes , Israel needs your help NOW!!
0 -
-
Of course, but with a few caveats......
No human being should have their one and only life taken from them unless there is a justifiable reason for doing so. A genuine risk to the life of the woman for example or if there was very little chance of the baby ever having quality of life.
An exception I feel should also been made in the cases of pregnancy as a result of rape as the woman won't have engaged in a behavior which has contributed to the existence of the human being.
There is not enough education about fetal development in our schools I feel and there absolutely should be. It's sad to see young girls thinking that they are carrying clumps of cells and that having an elective abortions is reproductive healthcare. Those peddling the "sentience" argument are largely to blame in recent times and I worry for young women who make choices based on such agenda saturated information. "Sentience" is as much a red herring as the ability to feel pain once was.
The level of fetal abilities which a developing human being has acquired is something which of course very interesting (indeed I have a great book for many years called Windows to the Womb: Revealing the Conscious Baby from Conception to Birth) but it should not be something which determines when a human being's life has begun, or at least not so far on the road which is what of course is the case with those who suggest that a fetus must be "sentient" to warrant anyone having any moral regard for them.
I'm an atheist so I have to laugh when I hear people speaking about a fetus as not being a human being, not being a human being, not being a human being, not being a human being, not being a human being, hang on...... now it's a human being, look, someone's home! Why? Because they have now developed to a stage which means you're now willing to respect their life?
No, nobody is ever 'home' as we have no souls. There is no 'somebody' there as they are always there to begin with. We just are either capable or incapable and development / health is all that determines that and if you decide a developing human baby should not have a right to life just because it is not yet capable of doing x ... well that's just absurd.'Humans don't care about animals unless they can do x, y and z and the more they can do x, y and z, the more moral regard we have for them. Therefore, unless our developing offspring can do x, y and z too..... it should be okay to destroy them'
That's the "sentience" theory in a nutshell but it's baloney, as humans have ethical and moral regard for many different species and all based on far more factors than what their capabilities are. It's far from the primary determining factor which many would have you believe.
Swat a wasp next time you have guests around and most won't blink an eye. Swat a butterfly and they'll most likely call you a cnut. Give a stray dog a boot in your local village and you'll likely get arrested. Hit a rat with a shovel and nobody will think any the lesser of you for it. Well, a few members of peta maybe but that's about it.
So the truth is there are many factors for why we have ethical and moral regard for life. Even in our own species all ethical and moral regard goes out the window when someone is revealed to be a serial killer but yet we adjust our behavior with the moral and ethical regard for human beings who aren't even born yet. It's one of the main reasons that ecological preservation of the planet is important to us. Sure, some of that is so our family will fair better but a good chunk of it for sure is with people who we will never know or meet in firmly in mind.
Therefore our ethical and moral regard for a living entity is not merely restricted to whether or not they have a certain level of ability. It's much more complex and varied than that. It's more about what that creature has to offer, or indeed, could offer or will offer.... and conversely do they, or would they, possibly be a clear and present danger to us at any stage. It is these things which are the prevailing factors in whether or not we have an ethical and moral regard for life forms.
There is of course also the overriding factor that human fetuses are our own bloody species and so it's therefore only logical that our ethical and moral regard for them would kick in long before it might for other species.0 -
Can't speak for those in Europe but here in the US we have a legal method to enter the country that is agreed to by both the pro life and pro choice crowds.DubInMeath wrote: »Really because most of the pro life posters on here are also saying migrants should be left to drown in the med. Must be their religion or something that disqualifies them from their concerns.You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
But it's not just your life, it's someone else’s life that is unique and different than yours.
Most, nearly all in fact, abortions by choice occur in and before week 12 of pregnancy. To call the thing aborted at that stage a someONE rather than a someTHING does nothing but reveal your own biases and narratives here. It is certainly not a term couched in any useful reality however. There is no someONE there at all.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.
That some people would want to be parents does not compel another person to produce babies. It is simply an irrelevant non-sequitur.
It is great that there are people willing to adopt in our world. Really wonderful. But their existence does not turn other women into incubators for their benefit. The willingness of some people to adopt says nothing, and should say nothing, about another person's right and choice to abortion.
There are literally 1000s of people in wheelchairs who would love to play football like the rest of us do. Does that place any onus on my to play football for them vicariously? No, it does not. Similarly if a woman or couple can not reproduce, that places no vicarious onus on any level on those that can to do so for them.
All that said however I do wholly agree with you that if we can make adoption a better and more attractive process in Ireland than it currently is.... I certainly do not see that as a bad thing. The goal here should always be to offer more options to women with crisis pregnancies and not pressure them towards, or away from, any one of them. Adoption or abortion.I believe an unborn baby is a human being and thusly should be afforded the rights provided to human beings.
THAT you believe it is clear for everyone to see. I do not think re-stating that position adds to it. WHY you believe it however is entirely opaque despite numerous posts.
Other than biological taxonomy I am not seeing any reason to treat a fetus as "human" and certainly no reason to treat it in relation to things like personhood and rights, or affording it moral and ethical concern.
The leap from biological taxonomy to philosophical concepts, without building a bridge between the two was tried a LOT during the referendum debates and it failed as much then as it does now. And I do not think shouting words like "science" and "nazi" is likely to construct that bridge. Quite the opposite.Science goes with conception.
No. It does not. Science of conception talks about reproduction. The person you are responding to asks when it becomes a PERSON. And science does not to my knowledge link that to conception at all.
But as with all scientific conversations I am open to correction. Cite your science which you feel makes this determination. Let's see the science to which you refer please.
The links you provided so far are not science, but opinion pieces. You do know the difference between citing science, and citing contrived opinion pieces right?
The other issue with your links is that they are often arguing for a position no one here has actually disagreed with. We are all aware that a separate distinct life comes into being at conception. In years of the abortion debate, over 1000s of posts on boards.ie I have seen hardly anyone disagree with that position.
So I am not even sure what position you think you are defending there. Worse, I am not even convinced yet YOU know which position you are ever defending there.Bottom line from all cited scientific sources is human life begins at conception
Which, AGAIN, was not the question you were asked when you claimed "Science goes with conception". You are ignoring the questions asked of you, and answering ones of your own choosing instead.0 -
Advertisement
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »No human being should have their one and only life taken from them unless there is a justifiable reason for doing so.
No human PERSON with rights should have their life taken without justifiable reason. A fetus however does not seem to meet any of the criteria of being a person and you have yet, despite being asked many many times, outlined the reasons why we should have such moral and ethical concern for a fetus.Outlaw Pete wrote: »An exception I feel should also been made in the cases of pregnancy as a result of rape as the woman won't have engaged in a behavior which has contributed to the existence of the human being.
A position I strongly disagree with even within my pro-choice peers. If you do not think the fetus has a right to life, which I do not, then rape is irrelevant.
If however you DO think a fetus has a right to life then you are advocating here the death penalty for someone who was not the perpetrator of a crime, the victim of a crime, or even the witness of a crime.
I struggle to think of many examples in society where we curtail the rights, let alone remove all of them, from someone who was in no way privy to the perpetuation of a crime. It is a strange position to advocate in my view.Outlaw Pete wrote: »There is not enough education about fetal development in our schools I feel and there absolutely should be.
I agree. Given some of the nonsense you have posted in the past it is clear education has failed in this regard. That you have had issue differentiating between autonomic responses and actual reasons to think a fetus is aware, sentient, conscious, or experiencing any stiumulus or pain for example just shows how much such education could benefit many people.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Those peddling the "sentience" argument are largely to blame in recent times and I worry for young women who make choices based on such agenda saturated information. "Sentience" is as much a red herring as the ability to feel pain once was.
Yet aside from parroting the phrase "red herring" you have floundered (heh) at rebutting that position or actually explaining a single thing that is wrong with it. I for one have not just erected that argument but explained at length the many pillars supporting it. You have managed to fail to knock down the argument and every single one of the pillars in the past. You continue to fail today.Outlaw Pete wrote: »but it should not be something which determines when a human being's life has begun, or at least not so far on the road which is what of course is the case with those who suggest that a fetus must be "sentient" to warrant anyone having any moral regard for them.
And yet you have failed when asked many many many times to adumbrate a reaosning for having moral and ethical concern for non-sentient entities. Which would seem to be a very low bar to ask you to reach given the assertions you are making here.Outlaw Pete wrote: »That's the "sentience" theory in a nutshell but it's baloney, as humans have ethical and moral regard for many different species and all based on far more factors than what their capabilities are.
Sure because a cow in a field is a sentient entity while a 12 week old fetus is not. Shouting the word "absurd" or "baloney" at these facts is not going to make them go away for your convienience. No matter how much you really.... really really.... need it to.
Further human moral and ethical concern seems to map directly along the sentience lines. If you ask most people what animal they would save from a burning building and you give them multiple pairs of options..... almost invariably they select the animal representative of a higher sentience. They would save a cat over a mouse. An ape over a dog. In fact they often value sentience to the degree that multiples do not sway their regard. Many would save a SINGLE dog over 100 mice for example. Such is our regard for relative sentience.
And what is more you make that very point yourself talking about swatting wasps and shoveling rats.0 -
Okay... but one is scientific findings and the other is summaries of articles by mostly Embryology scientists on when human life begins. Bottom line from all cited scientific sources is human life begins at conception
The question of when life begins is not what you were asked. The question was;Im a little late joining this discussion, so apologies if this question has been asked/discussed. but I'm curious - at what point does a fetus become a person?
To which you replied;It’s been answered in different ways by different individuals. Some say from conception. Some say not until birth. Some say 12 weeks, some 26 weeks, and some contend when a heartbeat is detected. Science goes with conception.
So you are saying that according to science a fetus becomes a person at conception. Now I have a background in biology and biochemistry and this is news to me since there is no fetus at conception. An embryo forms at conception. The fetal stage of development of an offspring is the stage at which organs and limbs begin to form, for humans this is around the 8 week mark. A developing fetus doesn't begin to exhibit reflect responses to external stimuli until around 16 weeks and the brain isn't developed enough to exhibit conscious responses until around 26 weeks.
Now, at conception an embryo is 'alive' in the same sense that any group of cells in the human body is alive. They function in the same way any other mammalian cell functions. However an embryo is not a person anymore than my heart or my baby toe is a person. Without a fully functioning body to support them they will die.
Can I assume since you're stance is that an embryo becomes a person at conception that you are as opposed to the morning after pill as you are to medical abortions? Since by your logic the morning after pill is also killing babies?0 -
DubInMeath wrote: »Really because most of the pro life posters on here are also saying migrants should be left to drown in the med. Must be their religion or something that disqualifies them from their concerns.
What a ridiculous thing to say. I suppose if you feel you can't offer a good point just try to paint your opponents as monsters. Good lad0 -
-
To everyone that thinks I’m trying to provoke a mean spirited argument or re-litigate the entire referendum debate we had last year, I’M NOT.
What I noticed in that campaign was the debates seemed more focused on statistics of how many women were travelling to England and both sides impugning each other’s motives in cynical fashion and less focused on an actual honest debate from first principles on the most important question which is “Should the foetus/unborn human have the right to life?”
If the answer is yes, then there’s a case for limiting abortion only to threat to life cases, if the answer is no, then there ought to be as few restrictions as possible.
Most of the grandstanding talking points seemed to fly right over this question.
Even the No Campaign whom I have significant criticisms of (for putting out bad dubious info on cancer and infertility complications from abortions and for just being crap overly self-assured debaters) were hopeless at framing the debate.
So hopefully there’ll be an honest discussion that will lead to some enlightenment.
(For anyone saying “you guys lost the referendum, get over it” all I have to say is that the Pro-Choicers lost in 1983 by precisely the same proportion that the Pro-Lifer’s lost by in 2018, and they were not shut down, they kept campaigning for their cause as they had the right to do. The nature of a free republic is that an issue can and should be discussed openly as long as there are people who care about it and we ought not to shut down a debate based on an appeal to popularity.)
But sure who’s stopping it from being discussed? Unless you are barred from discussing it on every media outlet and via blog or social media, nobody is being shut down. Criticism of what someone is saying is not shutting them down. It’s criticising them. Which people are also free to do.0 -
splinter65 wrote: »“lost control of women” oh what a load of absolute bollox.
You all seem completely exasperated that the other 700000 didn’t just disappear. Tough.
No, I think they should have their their say, like everyone.
And for the more extreme, I grab the popcorn, to be honest.
The most exasperated people I encountered post-referendum were a few No voters who seem genuinely dumbfounded that No didn’t win or that the Yes win wasn’t marginal. That Yes won across all age groups bar one and across all constituencies bar one. Other referenda in the past have been dragged across the line by certain parts of the country and I think they were thinking that might be the case again and might this time fail. Or that it would be close enough to keep the challenges rumbling on years.0 -
I'm all for people having a choice to do what they please with their bodies, their bodies, their responsibility, their business.
It's none of my business.
It's so sad that the people who are aborting potential offspring, are the people who more than likely have a great gene pool...
And then the people who have nothing to add to society or their kid's are popping them out left right and centre.
So getting down to brass tacts, who's the strongest of the species ?
The people who are sharing their gene's and letting them multiply or the people who are getting rid of their potential offspring ?
Usually it's survival of the fittest.
Where's the grey area ?
I'd say the upper upper class, you know the ones who are old money and are a bit odd like myself will more than likely keep the child.
And the working class will more than likely keep it too...
So you've usually the middle classes who'll get rid of it, you know the professionals who are more worried about themselves and their future, and the implications of having a child...0 -
Deleted User wrote: »So you would only limit it to cases of medical need?
I am more interested in where rights accrue than whatever side of this argument you are on. If we agree it's fair that 12 weeks is the cut-off point, are we as a society saying a foetus has rights after 12 weeks? Why not 20, 30 etc?
Also, if you truly believe in bodily autonomy, people should be allowed sell their bodies for sex if they so choose, it is their choice. Maybe they should even be allowed sell organs etc. You might not like it, but as you repeatedly have pointed out, it's not your body so why care?
Many pro-choice folks could be in favour of legalisation of prostitution. It’s something I’m open to anyway. I’m undereducated on the topic but I’m open to the idea from what I know. Do you know if there’s much of a correlation between being pro-choice and against the legalisation of prostitution?0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »Many pro-choice folks could be in favour of legalisation of prostitution. It’s something I’m open to anyway. I’m undereducated on the topic but I’m open to the idea from what I know. Do you know if there’s much of a correlation between being pro-choice and against the legalisation of prostitution?
No idea tbh, pro-choice (or life) aren't a homogenous group.
However, if you are pro-choice because of bodily autonomy, it would be inconsistent to restrict anyone else's body choices either though.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 6973
Deleted User wrote: »No idea tbh, pro-choice (or life) aren't a homogenous group.
However, if you are pro-choice because of bodily autonomy, it would be inconsistent to restrict anyone else's body choices either though.
When does a fetus become a child?
For example. A child dying is one of the worst things you could hear about. I was at a child's funeral last year and the church was packed. As of course would be expected in such tragic circumstances.
Yet a woman miscarries at or before 12 weeks of pregnancy, where is the funeral?
If they are both children, why are they not treated the same?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement