Should a foetus have the right to life?

Sean.3516

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

"to convince others" is probably not a good basis upon which to discuss anything in 2019. it very much suggests youve decided you're right and everyone else is there to learn. day of evagelism is passed i think tbh.

i understand what "mom" means, its the american for mother. im curious as to why it seems to pop up on boards.ie when hot religious topics arise.

NaFirinne

NaFirinne wrote: »

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?

divide by 8 billion and work from there

Sean.3516

osarusan wrote: »

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.

I'm not selectively applying it. You're misunderstanding it.

The idea I've tried to explain to you twice now is so simple that you must be intentionally misunderstanding it.

Every right whether to bodily autonomy, life, property is accompanied by the responsibility to not infringe on other people's access to that same right.

This means that you cannot invoke bodily autonomy to have an abortion since your right to bodily autonomy is accompanied by the responsibility not to infringe on the right to bodily autonomy of others who aren't a threat to you.

There is literally nothing inconsistent about this.

seamus

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Every right whether to bodily autonomy, life, property is accompanied by the responsibility to not infringe on other people's access to that same right.

This means that you cannot invoke bodily autonomy to have an abortion since your right to bodily autonomy is accompanied by the responsibility not to infringe on the right to bodily autonomy of others who aren't a threat to you.

But what about your first statement above? By protecting a foetuses "right to bodily autonomy" you are infringing on the mother's.

This a paradox, and is caused by a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what rights are and aren't being abused.

A thought experiment is easier;

You wake up after liver donation surgery and find that you are tethered via tubes, etc, to the person who took part of your liver. The liver was too weak initially on its own, so your body is going to do the work for both of you until the donated liver is strong enough. So about six months. If you disconnect, the other person will die.

The question is not whether you should stay attached, but whether you should be legally forced to.

And any sane person says, "No, of course not". This is what is inconsistent in your discussion about rights. The dependent person's right to bodily autonomy is not being infringed upon by the provider's decision to disconnect. They don't get to choose what they do with someone else's body, only what they do with their own. The provider has chosen to disconnect. Which has unfortunate consequences for the dependent. But their rights are not being infringed.

gctest50

Sean.3516 wrote: »

............

This means that you cannot invoke bodily autonomy to have an abortion since your right to bodily autonomy is accompanied by the responsibility not to infringe on the right to bodily autonomy of others who aren't a threat to you.

Every pregnancy has risks to the mother

Sean.3516

Ella108 wrote: »

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

Emm, parent's get to decide a lot of things for their kids. One thing they don't get to decide is whether they live or die.

The foetus is a human being and it is the offspring of the mother. Therefore by definition the foetus is the mother's child.

Ella108 wrote: »

This statement has to do with your person beliefs.

Everybody recognises all the time that parent's have an obligation to their kids who have been born. In fact it's encoded in our laws. Since the only difference between a born child and an unborn child is the location and the development of the child, (it is still just as much a human being) I'm simply saying this idea should be applied consistently.

Ella108 wrote: »

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'.

Even if everything in this paragraph is correct and I'm willing to accept that it is. So what? We get to decide if humans live or die based on what may impact their health in the future?

Hannibal_Smith

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

Am I the 'he' you are referring to? I am not male.

It is not for you to judge a point invalid. And it only shows that you have made a giant leap without understanding my point.

A foetus is directly attached to its mother. It cannot survive without the mother it is completely and utterly dependent on her. It is not seperate. They are not seperate. If you detach the feotus before it is viable it will die. Nothing can replicate the attachment between the two.

You are doing the exact definition of splitting hairs.

Sean.3516

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"to convince others" is probably not a good basis upon which to discuss anything in 2019. it very much suggests youve decided you're right and everyone else is there to learn. day of evagelism is passed i think tbh.

I don't see any issue with trying to convince people in 2019. Seems like a pessimistic outlook.

Obviously I believe I'm right. But it's not quite as condescending as you've put it. I'm treating people as rational humans. I'm laying out a case. They can take it or leave it.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

i understand what "mom" means, its the american for mother. im curious as to why it seems to pop up on boards.ie when hot religious topics arise.

I'm not American.

seamus

Hah, how did I miss this gem?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

Pseudoscience everywhere.

This is the danger of talking about things that you think you know about because you did it in school, but don't realise that you got the short and simple version, not the reality.

Being a "different organism" is not dependent on having different DNA. Otherwise we'd have a whole hape of trouble when it comes to the edge cases.

Basically what you'd done here is invented a use case for the word "organism" that suits the point you're trying to make, and then invented your very own definition of the word "organism", which surprise, surprise also happens to suit your point. Except that it doesn't because you can have two distinct organisms with identical DNA and one individual organism with multiple sets of DNA.

SusieBlue

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I'm not selectively applying it. You're misunderstanding it.

The idea I've tried to explain to you twice now is so simple that you must be intentionally misunderstanding it.

Every right whether to bodily autonomy, life, property is accompanied by the responsibility to not infringe on other people's access to that same right.

This means that you cannot invoke bodily autonomy to have an abortion since your right to bodily autonomy is accompanied by the responsibility not to infringe on the right to bodily autonomy of others who aren't a threat to you.

There is literally nothing inconsistent about this.

If a man was bleeding to death in front of you, you could not be compelled to donate blood if you didn't want to. A living, breathing person would die because of your choice but no law would force you to donate against your will.

If a person needs a kidney transplant, and you were the only match on earth, you couldn't be forced to donate one of your kidneys if you didn't want to. Even though the person would have low quality of life and would subsequently die, your choice would be respected.

In both scenarios, YOUR right to bodily autonomy trumps THEIR right to life. So why should it be any different for a pregnant woman?

Why should a fetus's bodily autonomy trump a living, breathing woman's bodily autonomy?

Hotblack Desiato

Sean.3516 wrote: »

One's bodily autonomy does not extend to other humans. A foetus is not part of the woman. It's a seperate human.

It's not seperate, until it reaches the point of viability it cannot survive independently.

That's not an inequality of rights and responsibilities but an inequality of nature.

And now one that thankfully we can safely deal with when necessary.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

(When I say separate humans I mean two distinct organisms)

organism (plural organisms)

(biology) A discrete and complete living thing, such as animal, plant, fungus or microorganism

A foetus is not a discrete and complete living thing, therefore it is not an organism.

But if you're going to conclude from this that the mother and the foetus are the same human

Nope, I conclude that a pre-viability foetus is not yet a human being at all.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Instead the woman's body ... grows a whole new organ: the placenta.

No it doesn't. The placenta grows from foetal tissue.

It's just basic biology.

:rolleyes:

Sean.3516 wrote: »

But during pregnancy she has another human being inside of her which also has it's own bodily autonomy.

You keep saying that from the instant of conception, the zygote is a human being.

You have provided no basis whatsoever for this assertion.

Biologically, medically, legally, socially - a zygote, embryo or foetus is not regarded as a human being.

Otherwise we'd be holding funerals for periods, just in case there was a fertilised egg in there.

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.

You're not obliged to offer sanctuary in your home to any person who feels that their life is in danger (e.g. from an attacker, or extreme weather) without it. Just as a woman is not obliged to offer sanctuary inside her body to a zygote, embryo or foetus that she does not want to be there.

Ella108

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Emm, parent's get to decide a lot of things for their kids. One thing they don't get to decide is whether they live or die.

The foetus is a human being and it is the offspring of the mother. Therefore by definition the foetus is the mother's child.

Incorrect.

Foetus, is a foetus. Foetus is not a human. Also, human is not a foetus... Are you a foetus?

Everybody recognises all the time that parent's have an obligation to their kids who have been born. In fact it's encoded in our laws. Since the only difference between a born child and an unborn child is the location and the development of the child, (it is still just as much a human being) I'm simply saying this idea should be applied consistently.

Also, incorrect.
You just have to go back in history, few decades or better, only a hundred maybe. Of all humanity's entire existence, in all cultures, all the time, there was always some sort of discretion and autonomy around the birth and pregnancy. So you saying 'all the time' part- is untrue. Please read some history or, better anthropology

Even if everything in this paragraph is correct and I'm willing to accept that it is. So what? We get to decide if humans live or die based on what may impact their health in the future?

Nope you are just implying that. It has to do with human suffering, adoption is not ( the only, if at all a )solution - as plain as you put it, that was all I wanted to say

Quantum Erasure

seamus wrote: »

Hah, how did I miss this gem?

i don't know how you missed it, but you missed it all the same

Quantum Erasure

Ella108 wrote: »

Incorrect.

Foetus, is a foetus. Foetus is not a human. Also, human is not a foetus

meh, why do people deny the obvious fact that a fertalised human egg is a distinctly 'unique' human 'entity' ??

deny science so that, what? you can feel better about your ideological stance? ...

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

organism (plural organisms)

(biology) A discrete and complete living thing, such as animal, plant, fungus or microorganism

where'd you get that definition?

parasite
(biology) An organism that lives on or in another organism, deriving benefit from living on or in that other organism, [/I]

meh...

Outlaw Pete

SusieBlue wrote: »

In both scenarios, YOUR right to bodily autonomy trumps THEIR right to life. So why should it be any different for a pregnant woman?

If I'm looking after my niece I just can't decide to leave her alone and head off to the cinema. Why not though? It's my body, my choice. I should be able to do what the hell I like with my own body, right? Nope. If anything happened her I would be held accountable and rightfully so, as my actions would have meant that I willfully neglected her, leaving her alone when I knew doing so would likely lead to her life being in danger. Now, let's say she needed a kidney, and I was a perfect match, would I be held accountable if I refused to agree to donate one? No, but why not?

Which brings us to your two examples:

You're suggesting that there is an equivalency between donating blood (or an organ) and allowing a pregnancy to proceed, and to some extent I agree with you, there could be, as I think in the case of blood donation, if a parent is a match and their child needs an urgent life saving transfusion, and donating blood wouldn't result in an immediate risk of life to the parent, then I absolutely think there should be laws in place making it illegal for them to refuse to help.

I don't have an issue with anyone refusing a blood transfusion for their own health, such as a Jehovah's Witness for example, but I don't think someone should have a right to refuse to give blood when their own child's life would be at risk, and where it wouldn't be likely to put the parent's life in any great jeopardy.

Always makes me laugh when I see prochoicers (on other threads) saying they think vaccinations should be mandatory as the bigger picture needs to be taken on board dammit.... then jump on an abortion thread and speak about body autonomy as if it is something which should never be bypassed, even if it saves a human being's life. The philosophical inconsistency seemingly non-existent to them.

Organ donation is a different ball game though, and I would need to look into the stats on it, with regards to risk to life, but parents should always be under a certain amount of obligation to sacrifice aspects of themselves and their lives for their children, within reason. That's just part of the human condition. When a man has sex with a woman he knows that should she become pregnant, he's going to be held fiscally responsible for that child for the next 18 years. There are just some responsibilities that we as adults must accept in this world and creating a human being is one of those things that we all know, or at least should know, results in us then becoming responsible for another's life.

Why should a fetus's bodily autonomy trump a living, breathing woman's bodily autonomy?

Well, kind of weird to describe a woman as 'living, breathing' given that a fetus is also living and just as dependant on oxygen..... but as for why they should trump the woman's life - I don't believe they should, and nor do I believe that the majority of those with prolife views think so either.

Trump means 'to rank above' - and the majority of those with prolife views merely believe that the unborn just shouldn't rank below the woman (barring medical necessities and a few other rare happenings of course). Sure, there are some extremists who believe a woman should never have the option of abortion, even when their life is at great risk should she not to have an abortion, but such people are as rare as that need thankfully. Which is why the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act didn't result in marches on the streets here in 2013.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Since the only difference between a born child and an unborn child is the location and the development of the child, (it is still just as much a human being)

That is a bit contrived however, and very much depending on your definition and how labile you are in applying them.

If I have to cars identical in every way except one entirely lacks wheels then the statements "That one is less of a car than the one with wheels" and "They are both just as much a car as each other" are neither true or false on the face of it.

To be true or false the question is does my definition of "car" include wheels. If it doesn't then only one of the statements is true. If it does, then the other is true.

There are MANY attributes that could be used to define the word "human" and if we are looking at a fetus, a nearly born child and a born child and using statements like "just as much a human being" then we must be clear.... that statement is ONLY true if we contrive to leave out of our definition of "human" the attributes that one has and the other lacks.

If you are talking about pure biological taxonomy only, and nothing more, then sure.... a fetus, an unborn child, and a baby are "Just as much a human being" as each other. I doubt anything but few, if anyone, on this thread has actually actively denied that.

IF you are talking about a human being as in an agent towards which we should have any moral or ethical concern, then no I would not say these things are "just as human as each other" because, unfortunately for many people against abortion..... moral and ethical concern does not seem to be mediated by taxonomic science or mere DNA.

In terms of abortion therefore, I do not play such linguistic gymnastics. Rather I identify the attributes of "human" that are actually relevant to moral and ethical implications and I notice that most (nearly all in fact) abortions by choice (rather than abortions of necessity) happen LONG BEFORE any of the relevant attributes have come into play.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Always makes me laugh when I see prochoicers (on other threads) saying they think vaccinations should be mandatory as the bigger picture needs to be taken on board dammit.... then jump on an abortion thread and speak about body autonomy as if it is something which should never be bypassed, even if it saves a human being's life.

This is one of the strengths of my position on abortion. It does not require I hold any contradictions related to bodily autonomy. My positions PERFECTLY incorporates the distinctions involved in all your examples in the previous posts?

Why should someone be held accountable for abandoning their niece to harm? Because the niece is a moral agent towards which we should have concerns.

Why do certain vaccinations need to be mandatory? Because we require them to protect the well being of moral agents towards whom we should have concerns.

Why does none of that apply to a fetus and over riding the personal rights of things like bodily autonomy in deference to it? Because despite MULTIPLE times asking you and many others have done nothing but shout the word "human" when asked why it should be seen as a moral agent towards which we should have concerns.

When there is MORE than one moral agent in play I absolutely agree there are situations, like Vaccination, where moral and ethical concerns should justifiably over ride bodily autonomy therefore. No issue there with me at all. That has to be taken on a case by case basis. I am all for compulsory Vaccination for example, that can be justified. I am a little more agnostic.... mainly as I have never actually considered the question deeply enough yet..... as to your position on compulsory donations of life saving materials between, say, a parent and child. But I can genuinely see the shadow of what an argument for that would look like.

TLDR: You are right to a point. Pro choice reasoning based SOLELY on the concept of bodily autonomy is likely not to be convincing or complete and will lead to some internal contradictions in other spheres. But I am not convinced that many writers here, least of all SusieBlue whom I have read much from, is basing their position SOLELY on that. Rather you are just replying SOLELY to that aspect of their over all position.

Ella108

orli na nh wrote: »

meh, why do people deny the obvious fact that a fertalised human egg is a distinctly 'unique' human 'entity' ??

deny science so that, what? you can feel better about your ideological stance? ...


where'd you get that definition?

parasite
(biology) An organism that lives on or in another organism, deriving benefit from living on or in that other organism, [/I]

meh...

I did not define humanity. I am merely saying, foetus is a foetus.

Hotblack Desiato

orli na nh wrote: »

meh, why do people deny the obvious fact that a fertalised human egg is a distinctly 'unique' human 'entity' ??

They don't, just question the relevance of that.
Most of these fertilised eggs never implant at all, or miscarry too early to be even noticed.

deny science so that, what? you can feel better about your ideological stance? ...

It's not the science that's at issue, it's the interpretation that pro-lifers put on top of it. It's only slightly less silly than "every sperm is sacred". Nobody really acts as if a frozen embryo, a late period (very early miscarriage, possibly) etc. is actually a human being.

parasite
(biology) An organism that lives on or in another organism, deriving benefit from living on or in that other organism, [/I]

So what?

SusieBlue

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If I'm looking after my niece I just can't decide to leave her alone and head off to the cinema. Why not though? It's my body, my choice. I should be able to do what the hell I like with my own body, right? Nope. If anything happened her I would be held accountable and rightfully so, as my actions would have meant that I willfully neglected her, leaving her alone when I knew doing so would likely lead to her life being in danger. Now, let's say she needed a kidney, and I was a perfect match, would I be held accountable if I refused to agree to donate one? No, but why not?

Which brings us to your two examples:

You're suggesting that there is an equivalency between donating blood (or an organ) and allowing a pregnancy to proceed, and to some extent I agree with you, there could be, as I think in the case of blood donation, if a parent is a match and their child needs an urgent life saving transfusion, and donating blood wouldn't result in an immediate risk of life to the parent, then I absolutely think there should be laws in place making it illegal for them to refuse to help.

I don't have an issue with anyone refusing a blood transfusion for their own health, such as a Jehovah's Witness for example, but I don't think someone should have a right to refuse to give blood when their own child's life would be at risk, and where it wouldn't be likely to put the parent's life in any great jeopardy.

Always makes me laugh when I see prochoicers (on other threads) saying they think vaccinations should be mandatory as the bigger picture needs to be taken on board dammit.... then jump on an abortion thread and speak about body autonomy as if it is something which should never be bypassed, even if it saves a human being's life. The philosophical inconsistency seemingly non-existent to them.

Organ donation is a different ball game though, and I would need to look into the stats on it, with regards to risk to life, but parents should always be under a certain amount of obligation to sacrifice aspects of themselves and their lives for their children, within reason. That's just part of the human condition. When a man has sex with a woman he knows that should she become pregnant, he's going to be held fiscally responsible for that child for the next 18 years. There are just some responsibilities that we as adults must accept in this world and creating a human being is one of those things that we all know, or at least should know, results in us then becoming responsible for another's life.



Well, kind of weird to describe a woman as 'living, breathing' given that a fetus is also living and just as dependant on oxygen..... but as for why they should trump the woman's life - I don't believe they should, and nor do I believe that the majority of those with prolife views think so either.

Trump means 'to rank above' - and the majority of those with prolife views merely believe that the unborn just shouldn't rank below the woman (barring medical necessities and a few other rare happenings of course). Sure, there are some extremists who believe a woman should never have the option of abortion, even when their life is at great risk should she not to have an abortion, but such people are as rare as that need thankfully. Which is why the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act didn't result in marches on the streets here in 2013.

That post was just full of strawman arguments, you abandoning a child in your care to go to the cinema has nothing to do with "my body, my choice" or anything under that umbrella
If you have a responsibility to look after your niece & she comes to harm due to your neglect, of course your responsible.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with bodily autonomy or your right to life.
Do you really think "my body, my choice" would stand up in court if you were charged with recklessly abandoning a child? :rolleyes:

As for the rest of your post, I really don't see the logic in getting into opinions on whether people/parents should be obliged to provide blood transfusions or organ donations for their children & others.
Its really neither here nor there.
The fact of the matter is that NOBODY can currently be forced to donate blood or an organ against their will.
Even if it means another person dying, their right to bodily autonomy supercedes other peoples right to life. This is a fact. Women should not lose that bodily autonomy just because they happen to be pregnant.

FeirmeoirtTed

SusieBlue wrote: »

If a man was bleeding to death in front of you, you could not be compelled to donate blood if you didn't want to. A living, breathing person would die because of your choice but no law would force you to donate against your will.

If a person needs a kidney transplant, and you were the only match on earth, you couldn't be forced to donate one of your kidneys if you didn't want to. Even though the person would have low quality of life and would subsequently die, your choice would be respected.

In both scenarios, YOUR right to bodily autonomy trumps THEIR right to life. So why should it be any different for a pregnant woman?

Why should a fetus's bodily autonomy trump a living, breathing woman's bodily autonomy?

I suppose some would argue that baby growing inside the woman deserves protection given they are completely dependent on that mother. This is where maternal instinct kicks in. The question then comes down to the view of the mother of that child. Is the child wanted or not? If the child is not wanted then the mother can abort her/him. Its seems the maternal/paternal instinct may not be as strong as in years gone by. I've heard a foetus referred to as a bunch of cells and as a parasite its funny when my wife had our 10 week scan the consultant didn't turn to us and say your parasite is growing big and strong. She called her a baby. No one will convince me that child didn't deserve to be protected from any willful harm when she was in the womb.

amdublin

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

I suppose some would argue that baby growing inside the woman deserves protection given they are completely dependent on that mother. This is where maternal instinct kicks in. The question then comes down to the view of the mother of that child. Is the child wanted or not? If the child is not wanted then the mother can abort her/him. Its seems the maternal/paternal instinct may not be as strong as in years gone by. I've heard a foetus referred to as a bunch of cells and as a parasite its funny when my wife had our 10 week scan the consultant didn't turn to us and say your parasite is growing big and strong. She called her a baby. No one will convince me that child didn't deserve to be protected from any willful harm when she was in the womb.

And that is absolutely fine (and wonderful) that you and your iwife made that choice.

Had the consultant turned to you and said the foetus is not growing big and strong, the foetus has a fatal foetal abnormality, then your wife and you would have had to face something else. And whatever your decision you made for you would be fine. No one should ever say that your wife should carry the pregnancy to full term, and no one should say that she should abort the pregnancy. Whatever you decided is your decision with no judgement from anyone else.

And equally, just because you have a baby (or do not have children), you should not have a say or judge anyone else in whether they abort a pregnancy or not.

Just mind your own business, and look after your own family eh.

Outlaw Pete

amdublin wrote: »

Just mind your own business, and look after your own family eh.

If an Irish couple had a newborn baby and they mistreated them in some way in, resulting in that baby's death, and it made the news given that foul play was suspected, I'm sure you would have an opinion on it, just like most people, and so why then just because a baby has not been delivered yet is it to be considered nobody else's business when a decision is made to end their life? We should care a great deal about a baby's death after they are born but think nothing of them being killed mere weeks before that. It's utterly ridiculous.

A developing human being has worth above and beyond what their mother thinks of them. It's incredulous that we as a society are just supposed to accept that should a woman decide that her developing baby's life should go no further, then no more should be said about it. That's that. Even though that baby will never get another chance at life. Their one and only life extinguished on the say so of another, even when all concerned are healthy.

https://twitter.com/EmmaMurphy12150/status/1144981781231427584

We wouldn't accept anyone mistreating a baby in any other circumstances, but purely because a woman is carrying a baby, we are supposed to turn a blind eye to them deciding to harm them. No question even given to if that baby's father minds that his baby's life is to be ended.

If a pregnant woman is attacked and the baby dies, manslaughter/murder charges are often brought. Many times at a stage of pregnancy where abortion is legal. So therefore laws are in place which punish people for taking an unborn human being's life at the same time there are laws in place saying that it's okay to take that human being's life, if that is, that person is the baby's mother.

We totally disrespect a human being's life by saying that another person should be able to determine if they get to keep living or not. Especially so when letting them live would not be significantly detrimental to the person's health making that 'choice' to have their life ended. That human being, be they a little girl, or boy, only has that one chance at life. When it's gone, they're gone. Yet they will have done nothing wrong. Why should that be. It's wrong.

A woman can do what she wants to her body when she is pregnant. I's so disingenuous to make the abortion debate all them and their bodies while ignoring the fact that there is another body in the picture, that of the human being whose life is in the balance. All that is asked is that women not do anything to endanger the life of the baby they are carrying.

All this talk of 'healthcare' in the context of elective abortions is baloney also. An abortion should not be considered healthcare unless it is being carried out to remedy a health concern. As this woman puts it: "Real healthcare saves both lives" and it is a real bastardization of the term healthcare when it is used to describe a procedure which is being carried out with the sole intention of taking a human being's life.


https://twitter.com/RightToLifeUK/status/1137072126920445952

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

so why then just because a baby has not been delivered yet is it to be considered nobody else's business when a decision is made to end their life?

The misrepresentations from you are high here. When people choose abortion they are not ending the life of a "baby not delivered yet". You are trying to paint the picture of a full baby in the minds of readers here.

But to answer your question, an actual baby is a conscious sentient agent to whom we should have moral and ethical concern. A fetus is not even REMOTELY such a thing, just because you get emotional about its tongue movements.

Surprised you still need to ask this question given how often you have asked, and been answered and had this explained to you.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

We should care a great deal about a baby's death after they are born but think nothing of them being killed mere weeks before that. It's utterly ridiculous.

More misrepresentation. The majority, nearly all, of choice based abortion occur in or before week 12. That is not "mere weeks" it is 6 to 7 MONTHS before. So the ones being "utterly ridiculous" here are you, yourself, the guy in your mirror, and you. In fact what is ridiculous is using time frames as a measure in the first place because many people against abortion are ok with contraception and early stage abortificants too. Which relative to your misrepresentation is certainly more "mere weeks" in the difference.

You do not make a lot of sense on this topic, and if you continue to think in time frames rather than in terms of actual relevant attributes of actual concern, you are not likely to start.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A developing human being has worth above and beyond what their mother thinks of them.

To you. But unless you can for once lay out an argument as to why anyone else should value it, you are not going to get past the fact you are just telling us what YOU value, not what anyone else might, let alone should. I am pro choice yet of the two of us I am the only one who has ever attempted to lay out a coherent and cogent argument as to how, when and why we should value human life. With you it is "just because" it seems.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No question even given to if that baby's father minds that his baby's life is to be ended.

You are on a red herring gish gallop now, calm yourself. And try not to forget that quite a LOT of pro choice people are split, or at least very agnostic or open, as to what level of input the father should have in the issue. Your position, given the result of the referendum, is weak and unsupported enough in our society without you ignoring the cohort you might actually have helping you.

Similarly many people agree with you that the idea of manslaughter and murder charges are brought in an attack on a woman who then loses a baby, might not always be coherent. It should really depend on whether the fetus has a reached a stage where we should have moral and ethical concerns for it or not. If it has, then I have no issue with such charges. If it has not, then I too find it patently ridiculous and other charges of another nature should be brought.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

We totally disrespect a human being's life by saying that another person should be able to determine if they get to keep living or not.

Quite the opposite actually. We totally disrespect the lives of human beings by people like yourself not being honest about WHY and when and how we should value it at all. It is in fact by understanding WHY a human being should get to keep their life or not, that we respect that life and it's value. It shows a true exploration of values, and the value of human life, to have that discussion and search for such conclusions.

That you personally get upset that the results of that exploration results in no argument to support value in something YOU PERSONALLY value..... is not our failure or lack of respect. It is yours.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Especially so when letting them live would not be significantly detrimental to the person's health making that 'choice' to have their life ended. That human being, be they a little girl, or boy, only has that one chance at life.

The same can be said about the use of contraception or the decision never to have children. Such decisions have ended, before it began, the chance at life that the resulting human beings otherwise WOULD have had. That is how ridiculous your position is when you present it in terms of potentials and hopes and possible futures. You just try to dilute the ridiculousness of that by way of nothing but an arbitrary choice as to when we should be concerned about potentials (after conception or some short time after that) and when we should not. Without ever presenting an argument supporting either.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A woman can do what she wants to her body when she is pregnant. I's so disingenuous to make the abortion debate all them and their bodies while ignoring the fact that there is another body in the picture

Your picture. However in the pictures of others a "body" is not relevant. There is only one (the father aside, which I mentioned above as a separate issue) ACTUAL PERSON in the picture. And what is "disingenuous" here is actually your ridiculous and as yet never supported position that the rights, choices, and well being of a sentient agent should be curtailed in deference to one that is absolutely not.

Until such time as you can present an argument as to why the rights, choices and well being of an actual sentient conscious person should be curtailed in deference to something that is not remotely sentient or conscious, your position is and will remain ridiculous. And alas "look at its tongue move" is not about to cross that chasm with a bridge for you.

FeirmeoirtTed

amdublin wrote: »

And that is absolutely fine (and wonderful) that you and your iwife made that choice.

Had the consultant turned to you and said the foetus is not growing big and strong, the foetus has a fatal foetal abnormality, then your wife and you would have had to face something else. And whatever your decision you made for you would be fine. No one should ever say that your wife should carry the pregnancy to full term, and no one should say that she should abort the pregnancy. Whatever you decided is your decision with no judgement from anyone else.

And equally, just because you have a baby (or do not have children), you should not have a say or judge anyone else in whether they abort a pregnancy or not.

Just mind your own business, and look after your own family eh.

I don't have a say in whether other people keep their children. Do you think it's morally right that a healthy viable foetus/baby of 10 weeks can be killed/terminated because their parents don't want them?

nozzferrahhtoo

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

Do you think it's morally right that a healthy viable foetus/baby of 10 weeks can be killed/terminated because their parents don't want them?

I do indeed think it is "morally right" that conscious sentient agents can choose what to do with/to not-sentient entities and objects. And in years of discussing the abortion issue no one has managed to explain to me why there should be an issue with that. We just get words like "human" and "baby" and "murder" and "life" shouted at us over and over, or attempts to show us pictures of tongues and toes.

seamus

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

I don't have a say in whether other people keep their children. Do you think it's morally right that a healthy viable foetus/baby of 10 weeks can be killed/terminated because their parents don't want them?

A foetus at 10 weeks is not viable.

SusieBlue

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

I don't have a say in whether other people keep their children. Do you think it's morally right that a healthy viable foetus/baby of 10 weeks can be killed/terminated because their parents don't want them?

10 week gestated pregnancies are nowhere remotely near viable, but regardless, yes I do believe that its morally right. I don't have to carry the pregnancy or raise the subsequent child, so why should I get to have an opinion on the matter?

Hotblack Desiato

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If a pregnant woman is attacked and the baby dies, manslaughter/murder charges are often brought.

I think you've been watching too many US cop shows.

It's always better when we try to keep discussions rooted in (a) reality (b) an Irish context.

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

I don't have a say in whether other people keep their children.

It's not even a year since we had laws which tried to do exactly that.

Do you think it's morally right that a healthy viable foetus/baby of 10 weeks can be killed/terminated because their parents don't want them?

Yes, absolutely. Denying a woman that right i.e. forced pregnancy and forced birth is immoral.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I find it hard to get my head around people saying that they are okay with abortion only for medical reasons or in the case of rape. Not the medical reasons part but the rape part. If you believe it’s wrong to abort a foetus, why do you not think it’s wrong if the foetus created through rape? Why do you relegate that foetus in importance?

I’ve also never received a satisfactory answer, in real life conversation or online, when I ask people how allowing abortion in the case of rape would actually work. There’s either silence or the suggestion that women pregnant through rape should be interviewed and it be decided whether or not they are telling the truth. Awful stuff.

SusieBlue

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I find it hard to get my head around people saying that they are okay with abortion only for medical reasons or in the case of rape. Not the medical reasons part but the rape part. If you believe it’s wrong to abort a foetus, why do you not think it’s wrong if the foetus created through rape? Why do you relegate that foetus in importance?

I’ve also never received a satisfactory answer, in real life conversation or online, when I ask people how allowing abortion in the case of rape would actually work. There’s either silence or the suggestion that women pregnant through rape should be interviewed and it be decided whether or not they are telling the truth. Awful stuff.

Someone on a previous thread suggested, in sincerity, that we should have rape committes.
These committes would be made up of upstanding members of the local community (all men of course) including doctors, psychologists, Gardaí and members of the cleregy.
The woman would put her case to the committee, and they would then have a vote decide if she was eligible for an abortion. If she didn't compel them enough, she would be denied.
This was presented a reasonable, logical solution. It was actually quite scary that even one person thought it was a good idea.