Should a foetus have the right to life?

Sean.3516

SusieBlue wrote: »

You literally haven’t made one single valid point, all you’ve done is contradict yourself.
Harping on about the bodily autonomy of a 10 week gestated fetus when in order for it to have that autonomy, a living breathing woman would be forced to sacrifice hers, whether she’s willing or not.
Absolutely ridiculous.

I used the word "valid" in the post you responded to the way it's used in formal logic.

A "valid" argument is one in which the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

The gentleman whom I was responding to's premise was that a foetus is dependent on it's mother in order to live (until viablility).

His conclusion was that therefore the foetus is not a separate human.

Obviously all of biology corroborates that a foetus is dependent on it's mother to survive until viability. Biology also tells us that the foetus and the mother are two distinct organisms. (i.e. Not the same) They have different DNA, separate nervous systems, circulatory systems. If two living thing do not have the same DNA, then they are not the same organism.

In other word's the gent's (and I apologise if I'm wrongly assuming his gender) premise (which was true) did not guarantee his conclusion.

Therefore his argument was invalid.

Sean.3516

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I'm not waiting on you to set the barometer for validity here.

The feotus cannot live without the mother. It is not seperate.

I'd direct you to my previous post to SusieBlue just to save me typing it all out again.

Sean.3516

osarusan wrote: »

A woman's womb is part of her own body. Not allowing a woman to remove from her womb something which she doesn't want to have in her womb is clearly placing a limit on her bodily autonomy. Her control over a part of her own body has been limited or removed. I don't really see how it's possible to deny that.


Whether or not we consider a foetus to be a human, potential human, separate life, or whatever else, has nothing to do with the question of whether it is a limit on her bodily autonomy.

If the woman had a pen stuck in her womb or a set of house keys, I would'nt question her right to remove them.

But during pregnancy she has another human being inside of her which also has it's own bodily autonomy. Since the only way to remove this human being (ante-viability) is to kill it, then her bodily autonomy does not extend to that human. (Unless the pregnancy becomes a threat to her life.)

We recognise this distinction in every other area of life. If I own my house and and I exert control over my house just as I exert control over my own body and someone walks into my house without my permission, I don't have the right to kill that person unless they are a direct threat to my life. I may be able to try and remove them by other means such as asking them to leave or calling the Gardaí.

However in the case of an ante-viability pregnancy, no other means of removing the foetus from the area you own exist.

osarusan

Sean.3516 wrote: »

But during pregnancy she has another human being inside of her which also has it's own bodily autonomy. Since the only way to remove this human being (ante-viability) is to kill it, then her bodily autonomy does not extend to that human. (Unless the pregnancy becomes a threat to her life.)

In order to protect the bodily autonomy (and life) of the foetus, it is necessary to limit the woman's autonomy over the part of her own body in which the foetus is located.

I don't really see how that can be denied.

SusieBlue

osarusan wrote: »

In order to protect the bodily autonomy (and life) of the foetus, it is necessary to limit the woman's autonomy over the part of her own body in which the foetus is located.

I don't really see how that can be denied.

He’s tying himself up in knots trying to justify his point but the above cannot be ignored or denied. By giving the fetus full bodily autonomy, we are denying the woman hers.

Ella108

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.)

Foetus, is not in a position to give consent, obviously. So IMHO, the person who carries this foetus or persons who created this foetus, should be given the autonomy / rights to decide.

Sean.3516

osarusan wrote: »

In order to protect the bodily autonomy (and life) of the foetus, it is necessary to limit the woman's autonomy over the part of her own body in which the foetus is located.

I don't really see how that can be denied.

I don't see how it can be denied either. In fact I'm not even denying it.

Who ever said that bodily autonomy was an absolute in every circumstance? I certainly didn't. Of course there are exceptions.

Every anti-murder law, frankly every anti-crime law is essentially limiting your own bodily autonomy in order to protect the bodily autonomy of others. It's basically the John Stuart Mill principle of externalities. i.e. "You get to swing your fist around as long as you don't hit me in the face."

You seem to think that the location of the foetus is of some consequence with regard to this principle. It isn't. Especially so considering the foetus never chose to be there. It didn't make an incursion into your womb specifically to inconvenience you.

Sean.3516

Ella108 wrote: »

Foetus, is not in a position to give consent, obviously. So IMHO, the person who carries this foetus or persons who created this foetus, should be given the autonomy / rights to decide.

Children unborn or born are not able to consent to anything under our laws. The relationship between the woman and foetus is a parent-child one.

The person who carries this foetus has the responsibility not only to not kill it (as any human does) but to take care of it as it's parent at least until such a time as the responsibility can be transferred to someone else whether that is a relative or a foster parent.

6541

Yes

osarusan

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don't see how it can be denied either. In fact I'm not even denying it.

Who ever said that bodily autonomy was an absolute in every circumstance? I certainly didn't. Of course there are exceptions.

That's fine then, although I don't really understand why you even bothered to reply to this comment in the first place:

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s laughable that your arguing in favour of the bodily autonomy of a fetus when in order for it to have that autonomy, the woman has to sacrifice hers.

when it seems that, after all, you effectively agree with it.

Sean.3516

osarusan wrote: »

That's fine then, although I don't really understand why you even bothered to reply to this comment in the first place:

when it seems that, after all, you effectively agree with it.

So you're in favor of abolishing every law against violent crime?

osarusan

Sean.3516 wrote: »

So you're in favor of abolishing every law against violent crime?

I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

Hopefully it isn't just one of the worst strawman arguments I've ever seen on boards, or anywhere else, for that matter.

sean are you seeking a majority, an argument or a definitive answer to the question?

and why do you say 'mom'?

Sean.3516

osarusan wrote: »

I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

Hopefully it isn't just one of the worst strawman arguments I've ever seen on boards, or anywhere else, for that matter.

My point is that the principle you're deriding ("I get to swing my fist around as long as I don't hit you in the face.") is the basis for every law against murder, assault and frankly every law.

You ommitted this from the quote of the last post I replied to you in.

This same principle applies to not killing unborn humans in the womb. Yes, you have a right to bodily autonomy. But this right is accompanied by the responsibility to not infringe on the bodily autonomy of other humans that arent a threat to you.

Sean.3516

Deleted User wrote: »

sean are you seeking a majority, an argument or a definitive answer to the question?

and why do you say 'mom'?

I'm seeking a discussion with the intent to hopefully convince people. Nothing more.

And I said "mom" because I wished to refer to the female parent of a human and typing "female parent of a human" takes too long.

osarusan

Sean.3516 wrote: »

My point is that the principle you're deriding ("I get to swing my fist around as long as I don't hit you in the face.") is the basis for every law against murder, assault and frankly every law.

I haven't derided anything.

After reading your exchange with another poster, I wanted to clarify whether you were arguing that preventing a woman from having an abortion did not constitute a limit on her bodily autonomy.

After our back and forth, I can see that you are not making that argument, and that you agree that it does mean placing limits on a woman's bodily autonomy.

That was the entirety of our discussion - clarifying that one aspect of your argument. I didn't deride anything.

Sean.3516

osarusan wrote: »

I haven't derided anything.

After reading your exchange with another poster, I wanted to clarify whether you were arguing that preventing a woman from having an abortion did not constitute a limit on her bodily autonomy.

After our back and forth, I can see that you are not making that argument, and that you agree that it does mean placing limits on a woman's bodily autonomy.

That was the entirety of our discussion - clarifying that one aspect of your argument. I didn't deride anything.

Well you obviously don't agree with the principle since you're in favor of only selectively applying it and genuinely believing in a principle means applying it universally.

osarusan

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well you obviously don't agree with the principle since you're in favor of only selectively applying it and genuinely believing in a principle means applying it universally.

I would guess I apply the principle to exactly the same level of selectivity as you apply the 'right to bodily autonomy' principle.


And that is a principle which, by your own argument, you don't genuinely believe in, as you don't apply it universally.

gctest50

"Petri-dish" contents :



https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/lab-grown-mini-brains-produce-signals-just-like-those-in-pre-term-babies



At 10 months old, the laboratory-grown brains had patterns similar to those of a premature infant who had reached full term (40-week gestation).

Ella108

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Children unborn or born are not able to consent to anything under our laws. The relationship between the woman and foetus is a parent-child one.

This is exactly the reason, the decision should be on parents! Also, foetus is not a child or grown up (yet)

The person who carries this foetus has the responsibility not only to not kill it (as any human does) but to take care of it as it's parent at least until such a time as the responsibility can be transferred to someone else whether that is a relative or a foster parent.

This statement has to do with your person beliefs. There is enough evidence from psychological studies with regards to fostering/adoptions, that this process can have long lasting emotional impact on both ( adoptive parents and adoptees) not to mention other issues such as the identity for the 'foetus' who has now grown into a conscious being. Ofcourse, I am not denying that process of adoption could be better choice, say, compared to leaving the unwanted child, to fend for themselves. But how many adoptions are actually happening in the country? Again, this should be choice for biological parents, not for others to decide. We live in society with diverse views,so there should be diverse choices.

NaFirinne

Abortion is the tipping point at which the Human Race finally reaches it's apparent goal of destroying ourselves.

How much do we really have to hate ourselves as to destroy even the unborn at such extraordinarily high numbers.

Abortion is the result of just how hateful we have become to ourselves.

Our Lusts and our desires for short term pleasures that really mean nothing, has overtaken our ability to love ourselves and to love others.

Cordell

There's no hate, sometimes is guilt, shame, sadness, some other times it's just indifference and selfishness.
The only hate I've seen is coming from you guys.

seamus

NaFirinne wrote: »

Abortion is the tipping point at which the Human Race finally reaches it's apparent goal of destroying ourselves.

How much do we really have to hate ourselves as to destroy even the unborn at such extraordinarily high numbers.

Abortion is the result of just how hateful we have become to ourselves.

Our Lusts and our desires for short term pleasures that really mean nothing, has overtaken our ability to love ourselves and to love others.

I love how naive people are that they think humans haven't been carrying out abortions and infanticide for tens of thousands of years.

If anything foetal deaths are at extraordinarily low numbers.

ohnonotgmail

NaFirinne wrote: »

Abortion is the tipping point at which the Human Race finally reaches it's apparent goal of destroying ourselves.

How much do we really have to hate ourselves as to destroy even the unborn at such extraordinarily high numbers.

Abortion is the result of just how hateful we have become to ourselves.

Our Lusts and our desires for short term pleasures that really mean nothing, has overtaken our ability to love ourselves and to love others.

a couple of decades of the rosary will clear that right up.

NaFirinne

seamus wrote: »

I love how naive people are that they think humans haven't been carrying out abortions and infanticide for tens of thousands of years.

If anything foetal deaths are at extraordinarily low numbers.

No where near the mass scale we are now.


When you say foetal deaths are you referring to natural deaths or abortions?


Cause how is 28 million abortions worldwide an extraordinary low number?

NaFirinne

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a couple of decades of the rosary will clear that right up.

Sorry I don't believe saying the rosary will help anyone...but off you go if that's what you are into.

NaFirinne

Cordell wrote: »

There's no hate, sometimes is guilt, shame, sadness, some other times it's just indifference and selfishness.
The only hate I've seen is coming from you guys.

That's a lot of hate.


We hate ourselves so much we strife for the worst we can be instead of the best we can be.


"guilt, shame, sadness, some other times it's just indifference and selfishness" This is all a result of how we hate ourselves.

ohnonotgmail

NaFirinne wrote: »

That's a lot of hate.


We hate ourselves so much we strife for the worst we can be instead of the best we can be.


"guilt, shame, sadness, some other times it's just indifference and selfishness" This is all a result of how we hate ourselves.

speak for yourself. I think i'm fantastic.

NaFirinne

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

speak for yourself. I think i'm fantastic.

You think guilt, shame and hate are fantastic things?

ohnonotgmail

NaFirinne wrote: »

You think guilt, shame and hate are fantastic things?

well i have none of those things. why would I?