Should a foetus have the right to life?

FeirmeoirtTed

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

The irony: words like sentient agents - non sentient agents and objects. It's like reading a science fiction novel. You use those words for the exact same reason pro life people use the words you've mentioned to distance yourself from the reality that a developing foetus is a new life and without deliberate and unnatural interference will realise that life the vast majority of the time.
The issue is one of humanity and compassion for the defenceless. An unborn baby is at the mercy of their parents in one family where that child is wanted they are born in another aborted.

nozzferrahhtoo

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

The irony: words like sentient agents - non sentient agents and objects. It's like reading a science fiction novel. You use those words for the exact same reason pro life people use the words you've mentioned to distance yourself from the reality that a developing foetus is a new life and without deliberate and unnatural interference will realise that life the vast majority of the time.

Always fun when the best someone can do is discuss the language you use while making a point, instead of actually discussing the point. Really shows they have nothing to actually say. One guy even trawled through all my posts for 10 years and the best he could do is come back and complain that 10 years ago I used slightly different wording than I do today. A single word in fact.

That was me schooled guess

I use the language I use for one reason and one reason only..... it is accurate and it says clearly what it is I am trying to say. Try it sometime.

Further I find it hilarious that the "reality" you think I am "distancing myself" from are things I have said time and time and time and time again in all my posts throughout the threads on this topic. For example the fact the fetus is a "new life" is something I have said myself any number of times, openly, clearly and in the same language as you. So regale me here, how exactly am I distancing myself from the reality I myself have been trying to express to people for years? This should be hilarious.

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

The issue is one of humanity and compassion for the defenceless.

Yes I agree with the first half of that entirely. The issue IS one of "humanity". That is why I am pro choice. Because I sat down over many years and explored that word very deeply indeed. I explored what it means. What it says. And what aspects of "humanity" it is that we value and more importantly WHY we value them.

And not just some, not just most, but ALL of what I discovered during that exploration led me to realise that there is nothing whatsoever about a 12 week old fetus that constitutes the aspects of "humanity" I think we can and should find value in. There is however EVERYTHING about a pregnant woman that we should.

So I repeat what I said before, in the post you quoted in fact. I see absolutely nothing that tells me we should compromise in ANY way the well being, choices and freedoms of a pregnant woman and person..... in deference to a fetus. I simply don't. And it ain't in your post either.

When you talk about "defenceless" and "mercy" however you are engaged in nothing but projection. Emotive language designed to pull on heart strings but without a single coherent argument that validates the target upon which it is being projected. I could talk about cake with the same language you are using.... but it would not add value to the cake. And I should not try to add that value MERELY by the use of that language. Which is, alas, all you are doing here.

Graces7

Abortion is death. Period. To the only being that is quintessentially a human person. Before abortion there is life.

An earlier post spoke of blood donation and kidney donation; that refusing was OK even if lead to death. Most of us would donate.

And there is no valid comparison between those needs and abortion. Wilful deliberate ….

deeply thankful for all the wise and compassionate folk here who know the truth of this. THANK YOU

Off out to get some clean air . bye!

splinter65

Graces7 wrote: »

Abortion is death. Period. To the only being that is quintessentially a human person. Before abortion there is life.

An earlier post spoke of blood donation and kidney donation; that refusing was OK even if lead to death. Most of us would donate.

And there is no valid comparison between those needs and abortion. Wilful deliberate ….

deeply thankful for all the wise and compassionate folk here who know the truth of this. THANK YOU

Off out to get some clean air . bye!

There’s no clean air outside either Graces. Ireland bought the lie and now Ireland owns it. In 50 years people will be wondering how this was allowed to happen. Lots of people who should have been here won’t be here and lots of women will be wondering how it might have turned out.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s no clean air outside either Graces. Ireland bought the lie and now Ireland owns it. In 50 years people will be wondering how this was allowed to happen. Lots of people who should have been here won’t be here and lots of women will be wondering how it might have turned out.

There's that nimbyism popping up again

nozzferrahhtoo

Graces7 wrote: »

Abortion is death. Period.

So is steak. Merely calling something death says NOTHING about the morality of it however. It is just an emotive word you are using in place of presenting an actual argument.

Graces7 wrote: »

To the only being that is quintessentially a human person. Before abortion there is life.

The only being who is a human person in the equation is the pregnant woman. The fetus is not a person merely because you choose to call it one any more than it is a truck, if I chose to call it that.

splinter65 wrote: »

Lots of people who should have been here won’t be here

You could say the same about contraception being legalised in Ireland. There are lots of people not here who otherwise would have been.

See what whataboutery and what ifs gets you? You can dream what might have been all you like. MY moral and ethical concern lies solely with the people who DO exist.... and their well being, their choices, their freedoms.

SusieBlue

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

The irony: words like sentient agents - non sentient agents and objects. It's like reading a science fiction novel. You use those words for the exact same reason pro life people use the words you've mentioned to distance yourself from the reality that a developing foetus is a new life and without deliberate and unnatural interference will realise that life the vast majority of the time.
The issue is one of humanity and compassion for the defenceless. An unborn baby is at the mercy of their parents in one family where that child is wanted they are born in another aborted.

1 in 4 pregnancies naturally miscarry before the 12th week. I wouldn't call that the "vast majority of the time".

SusieBlue

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s no clean air outside either Graces. Ireland bought the lie and now Ireland owns it. In 50 years people will be wondering how this was allowed to happen. Lots of people who should have been here won’t be here and lots of women will be wondering how it might have turned out.

Abortion is not a new concept in this country.
Abortion has always been in Ireland, and it will always be in Ireland. The only difference is that its now legal and regulated and we aren't shipping our women overseas to foreign healthcare systems any more.

Hotblack Desiato

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

to distance yourself from the reality that a developing foetus is a new life and without deliberate and unnatural interference will realise that life the vast majority of the time.

That's certainly not true at fertilization, which is where the RCC (only since mid-19th century) and most pro-lifers stake their claim of "personhood" or whatever

Even if you ignore that and start at implantation, it's unlikely a "vast majority" naturally result in a live birth.

Then you have to consider at what point should the rights of this embryo/foetus override or even match the rights of the woman in which it resides? Before birth certainly, but how far before? At viability - almost everyone would agree. At sentience - many would agree, but how do we define and pinpoint that?

What the majority of informed, non-religious-agenda-driven opinion agrees on is that a first trimester embryo is in no way a sentient entity, and that any rights it may have do not override the right of the woman concerned to control over her own body and her own life.

Hotblack Desiato

Graces7 wrote: »

Before abortion there is life.

"Life" and "a life" are not the same thing

Is a frozen embryo alive? In a way. Is it a life? No.

An earlier post spoke of blood donation and kidney donation; that refusing was OK even if lead to death. Most of us would donate.

And there is no valid comparison between those needs and abortion. Wilful deliberate ….

Whooooosh

The comparison is that these things are relatively benign or entirely trivial compared to having to go through a pregnancy and birth. Yet the law still can't compel anyone to do these things.

Why should a foetus have more rights, and be able to compel a woman to gestate it for nine months, when a living, breathing human being who needs a kidney or transfusion can't compel anyone to provide either?

deeply thankful for all the wise and compassionate folk here who know the truth of this. THANK YOU

The wise and compassionate folk overwhelmingly voted Yes.

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s no clean air outside either Graces. Ireland bought the lie and now Ireland owns it. In 50 years people will be wondering how this was allowed to happen.

In 50 years time we'll be wondering how something as inhuman as the 8th amendment could have occurred, and how it was allowed to stand for so long.

Actually it's difficult enough to explain to a young person today the climate of hypocrisy, fear, intimidation and violence which brought about the 8th

Lots of people who should have been here won’t be here and lots of women will be wondering how it might have turned out.

You can say exactly the same about contraception, and reactionary catholics used to say exactly that about contraception.

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

Graces7 wrote: »

Abortion is death. Period. To the only being that is quintessentially a human person. Before abortion there is life.

An earlier post spoke of blood donation and kidney donation; that refusing was OK even if lead to death. Most of us would donate.

And there is no valid comparison between those needs and abortion. Wilful deliberate ….

deeply thankful for all the wise and compassionate folk here who know the truth of this. THANK YOU

Off out to get some clean air . bye!

There’s no clean air outside either Graces. Ireland bought the lie and now Ireland owns it. In 50 years people will be wondering how this was allowed to happen. Lots of people who should have been here won’t be here and lots of women will be wondering how it might have turned out.

Because Irish women never sought abortion before the 8th was repealed 🙄 Oh no wait... They travelled in their thousands to a foreign country... But let's bury our heads in the sand a bit deeper ey?

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s no clean air outside either Graces. Ireland bought the lie and now Ireland owns it. In 50 years people will be wondering how this was allowed to happen. Lots of people who should have been here won’t be here and lots of women will be wondering how it might have turned out.

Again as someone who isn't Irish as you've stated on the site, why are you so concerned about our abortion laws?

Sean.3516

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

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.

The hair that I’m splitting is the difference between one organism and another. It’s a pretty important hair and it’s what the entire argument hinges on.

I haven’t misunderstood you’re argument at all. As I’ve stated many times at this point I think you are 100% correct when you say the foetus is dependent on it’s mother to survive.

That statement just doesn’t prove what you think it proves.(which is what makes it invalid.)

They are not the same human.

Hotblack Desiato

One is a human being, the other isn't yet

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The hair that I’m splitting is the difference between one organism and another.

Well not really because I doubt you do that in any other context. Such as when eating a steak killed for your dinner. Or when taking an anti biotic. Or when using paper. Or any of the other things where the distinction between one organism and another simply does not matter to you.

So clearly more is in play than the mere distinction between two organisms. Either that, or your choice to have it matter in one context and not in any other is arbitrary nonsense with no foundation in anything real. Either way, it is not convincing.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

it’s what the entire argument hinges on.

No. It is not. What the entire argument hinges on is which of the organisms, either, or both we should have moral and ethical concern for and why. I have yet to see a single argument, least of all from you let alone anyone else during my many years discussing this topic, as to why we should have any for the fetus.

It being a distinct organism.... and "oh look it's tongue moves and gives met da feelz"..... happen to be the two least convincing attempts of the many I have heard over the years though.

Sean.3516

seamus wrote: »

Pseudoscience everywhere.


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.

Alright. Define organism for me then. Seriously, you’ve put a lot of effort into attacking my use of the word without once suggesting how it should be used properly.

My definition is an “individual plant, animal or single-celled life form.”

Merriam-Webster defines it as a

“complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole”

This definition is broader than mere biology and is a pretty comprehensive definition. I would criticize it though for not being quite as comprehensive as it should be.

While the structure of elements may be interdependent, they are not always “complex” and there may not always be multiple “elements”.

For example bacteria (which nobody disputes are organisms) have a fairly simple structure when compared with other organisms and are single celled. One could argue that they aren’t covered by this definition. One could also counter argue that bacteria though single celled are actually pretty complex when you consider the elements inside that single cell. DNA, multiple membrane layers, ribosome, some have a flagellum (tail).

In conclusion, neither of these definitions negates or disproves my argument.

In relation to your point about same DNA. Yes, there are cases in which two separate organisms have the same DNA. But these are rare anomalies and negligible in relation to the topic under debate.

It could be said that even though not all separate organisms have different DNA, all organisms with different DNA are in fact separate and I’ve yet to hear of a case in which a child was born with the same DNA as it’s mother.

Hotblack Desiato

If it's not capable of independent life, it's not an organism

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

In conclusion, neither of these definitions negates or disproves my argument.

In fairness the definition does not support any anti abortion argument I know of either. So it is hard to rebut an argument based on a definition that the definition never supported in the first place.

The entire planet is full of distinct separate organisms with distinct separate DNA. The question is why should that in any way matter to us morally or ethically. Why is a distinct piece of Human DNA somehow special in a way that a distinct piece of cow DNA or Chimpanzee DNA is not for example?

And why would "distinct" even matter anyway? If we started cloning and I created 1000 humans with the same DNA tomorrow, would their not being distinct make them any less precious as human beings than you or I? I would be suspicious of any moral worldview that suggests they would!

So i am not seeing why "distinct" matters, whether you apply it to the word "organism", or to a strand of DNA, or to a human individual. Rather it seems you want to put certain things on pedestals, without ever explaining why they are actually there at all.

Hannibal_Smith

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

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.

The hair that I’m splitting is the difference between one organism and another. It’s a pretty important hair and it’s what the entire argument hinges on.

I haven’t misunderstood you’re argument at all. As I’ve stated many times at this point I think you are 100% correct when you say the foetus is dependent on it’s mother to survive.

That statement just doesn’t prove what you think it proves.(which is what makes it invalid.)

They are not the same human.

No. Its not an important hair. You are flattering yourself.

The foetus and the woman are one. They are not seperate, until the feotus is viable. Therefore it is her bodily autonomy that is the subject here.

Sean.3516

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

One is a human being, the other isn't yet

What is it then?

Plumbthedepths

OP just a question, but what is your objective here? Bearing in mind the referendum has taken place and there is no appetite whatsoever politically to revisit a decision backed by two thirds of the public whom took the time to vote.

Sean.3516

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well not really because I doubt you do that in any other context. Such as when eating a steak killed for your dinner. Or when taking an anti biotic. Or when using paper. Or any of the other things where the distinction between one organism and another simply does not matter to you.

Yes. I believe human beings have an inherent moral worth that other animals don’t.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So clearly more is in play than the mere distinction between two organisms. Either that, or your choice to have it matter in one context and not in any other is arbitrary nonsense with no foundation in anything real. Either way, it is not convincing.

The reason it matters in the context of pregnancy and not in the context of eating steak is that foetuses are human and cattle aren’t.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. It is not. What the entire argument hinges on is which of the organisms, either, or both we should have moral and ethical concern for and why. I have yet to see a single argument, least of all from you let alone anyone else during my many years discussing this topic, as to why we should have any for the fetus.

This is a stupidly written paragraph.

Obviously the question is should we or should we not have moral, ethical concern for the foetus. Everybody knows what the damn question is.

My answer to the question was that the foetus is a separate individual human to the mother and therefore worthy of moral and ethical concern. If it is (a separate individual human) then we should at least have some concern. If it isn’t then we should have no concern.

You’re response in this paragraph is basically “well what matters isn’t whether the foetus is a separate individual human but whether or not we should have ethical concern for it.”

You’re just re-stating the question to avoid addressing my answer to the question.

This is proof to me and that you guys just spout talking points all day and when it comes time for a cross-examination you’re incapable of making an coherent argument.

Sean.3516

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

OP just a question, but what is your objective here? Bearing in mind the referendum has taken place and there is no appetite whatsoever politically to revisit a decision backed by two thirds of the public whom took the time to vote.

To have a discussion from first principles about whether or not a foetus has the right to life. The second sentence of that paragraph is of no interest to me.

Hannibal_Smith

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

OP just a question, but what is your objective here? Bearing in mind the referendum has taken place and there is no appetite whatsoever politically to revisit a decision backed by two thirds of the public whom took the time to vote.

To have a discussion from first principles about whether or not a foetus has the right to life. The second sentence of that paragraph is of no interest to me.

You have asked should the feotus have a right to life.

You have received answers which have said yes it should.

You have received answers which said no it shouldn't.

You have received reasons from both sides.

Have you got your answer?

FeirmeoirtTed

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Always fun when the best someone can do is discuss the language you use while making a point, instead of actually discussing the point. Really shows they have nothing to actually say. One guy even trawled through all my posts for 10 years and the best he could do is come back and complain that 10 years ago I used slightly different wording than I do today. A single word in fact.

That was me schooled guess

I use the language I use for one reason and one reason only..... it is accurate and it says clearly what it is I am trying to say. Try it sometime.

Further I find it hilarious that the "reality" you think I am "distancing myself" from are things I have said time and time and time and time again in all my posts throughout the threads on this topic. For example the fact the fetus is a "new life" is something I have said myself any number of times, openly, clearly and in the same language as you. So regale me here, how exactly am I distancing myself from the reality I myself have been trying to express to people for years? This should be hilarious.



Yes I agree with the first half of that entirely. The issue IS one of "humanity". That is why I am pro choice. Because I sat down over many years and explored that word very deeply indeed. I explored what it means. What it says. And what aspects of "humanity" it is that we value and more importantly WHY we value them.

And not just some, not just most, but ALL of what I discovered during that exploration led me to realise that there is nothing whatsoever about a 12 week old fetus that constitutes the aspects of "humanity" I think we can and should find value in. There is however EVERYTHING about a pregnant woman that we should.

So I repeat what I said before, in the post you quoted in fact. I see absolutely nothing that tells me we should compromise in ANY way the well being, choices and freedoms of a pregnant woman and person..... in deference to a fetus. I simply don't. And it ain't in your post either.

When you talk about "defenceless" and "mercy" however you are engaged in nothing but projection. Emotive language designed to pull on heart strings but without a single coherent argument that validates the target upon which it is being projected. I could talk about cake with the same language you are using.... but it would not add value to the cake. And I should not try to add that value MERELY by the use of that language. Which is, alas, all you are doing here.

I was responding to your reply where you were referring to language being shouted like "murder life baby" it was you who brought up the issue of language not me.
Defenceless is entirely accurate the child in the womb is dependent on the maternal instinct of the mother, at their mercy is entirely accurate if the mother chooses to have an abortion then the defenceless child/foetus will be terminated, that new life will come to an end. That is not emotive language its factual . That you can't see any valuable aspect of humanity in a 12 week old foetus/baby worth having moral or ethical concern for is a sad reflection of the state of the world today.

Sean.3516

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The foetus and the woman are one. They are not seperate, until the feotus is viable. Therefore it is her bodily autonomy that is the subject here.

This is such pseudoscientific bullcrap.

So from the moment of conception to week twenty something, the foetus and the woman are “one”. The same organism, same human, same body and then what? Once the foetus develops to the point where it might just survive if the umbilical chord was cut and it was delivered pre-maturely then from that instant it until the end of time is a separate human, fully individual and worthy of the same ethical concern of any born human?

This is chickensh#t denial of science.
Pure and simple.

Sean.3516

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

You have asked should the feotus have a right to life.

You have received answers which have said yes it should.

You have received answers which said no it shouldn't.

You have received reasons from both sides.

Have you got your answer?

To everyone saying the discussion is pointless, why do you keep on posting replies?

Bingoo1

Well seein as how everyone on here was once a foetus. Can we turn the question on ourselves? Have I the right to life? Hell, yes!

Loafing Oaf

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

OP just a question, but what is your objective here? Bearing in mind the referendum has taken place and there is no appetite whatsoever politically to revisit a decision backed by two thirds of the public whom took the time to vote.

To reconvert Ireland to the pro-life POV, one Internet randomer at a time...

the_syco

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.

Oh yes you are.