Should a foetus have the right to life?

interactive

Car in Dublin ,two stickers on back window.
A dog is not just for Christmas, its for life.
Repeal the Eight.
The woman driver was more concerned about a dog than a unborn baby.

interactive

interactive wrote: »

Car in Dublin ,two stickers on back window.
A dog is not just for Christmas, its for life.
Repeal the Eight.
The woman driver was more concerned about a dog than a unborn baby.

The more troll level posters I see on here the more I like my dogs.

Calina

Bingoo1 wrote: »

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!

That right started the day I was successfully born, and not before.

Calina

OP, remind me, you claimed to be Irish, right?

Why is so much of your vernacular English as it spoken in America and not as it is spoken in Ireland?

Hannibal_Smith

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

Yeah... You're not being mean spirited at all

You have missed the whole point with your tinfoil had paranoia..

Until the feotus is viable it is entirely reliant on the mother. We all know that, you agree with that, its not pseudo scientific bull crap or chicken and egg. If you know any other way as to how the feotus survives without the mother please entighten us.

It is clear you cannot understand the concept of a 9 week old feotus and a 36 week one. The scientific differences are enormous. Until you understand that you can keep your personal swipes and your insults to yourself.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

A child isn't capable of independent life until its at least 3 years old. Human babies are born many months premature compared to other mammals. They can barely see FFS.

At some point in the future it will be possible to keep fetuses alive from a few weeks in artificial wombs. Should abortion then be made illegal?

24 weeks is currently viable. These boundaries are constantly being pushed back.

You have to acknowledge at some point that abortion is killing a viable independent human being. There may be good reasons for doing so but lets not cloud the issue or tell yourself stories to make yourself feel better.

I never had the ability to rationalise my behaviour like this. I always knew what I was doing and made no excuses for myself. I feel many on the pro choice side don't do this.

On the pro life side, many are just following blindly what their religion tells them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

A child isn't capable of independent life until its at least 3 years old.

I think you are misunderstanding the argument. It is not my position so I am not defending it.... and I never use it.... but at least it is worth understanding it all the same.

A child of 2 years old can survive the death of it's mother. Yes it needs someone ELSE to care for it, but it can still survive.

A fetus at 12 or 16 weeks can not. The mother dies, it dies. It's survival, existence and life are entirely dependent on that mother.

As I said I do not agree with or use that line of reasoning. Especially since as you said yourself I half expect our medical science to progress to the point where that argument simply is not true any more.

But it still is worth understanding what the argument actually is all the same doncha think?

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to acknowledge at some point that abortion is killing a viable independent human being. There may be good reasons for doing so but lets not cloud the issue or tell yourself stories to make yourself feel better.

Personally I need no stories about it. My moral and ethical concern is for ACTUAL sentient agents. The fetus is not one. Until such time as someone FINALLY comes up with an argument as to why I should have concern for agents that might at some time in the future become sentient, but are not such now, my position on abortion will not waver on iota.

If such an argument were to be presented however I would flip my position on abortion over night without hesitation, embarrassment, or apology.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bingoo1 wrote: »

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!

I agree you and I both do. The question then becomes at what stage, and why, did you attain those rights. I do not think it was when you were a 12 week old fetus.

So one wonders what progress it makes in the discussion to flip the question on ourselves in this fashion?

interactive wrote: »

Car in Dublin ,two stickers on back window.
A dog is not just for Christmas, its for life.
Repeal the Eight.
The woman driver was more concerned about a dog than a unborn baby.

Probably because a dog given as a gift at christmas is a sentient agent and therefore worthy of moral and ethical concern.

A fetus at the point when choice based abortion occurs.... usually before 12 weeks that is in the near totality of cases..... is not.

Calina wrote: »

That right started the day I was successfully born, and not before.

I would personally say it started when you became a sentient agent capable of any level of experience, well being, or suffering.

To the best of my knowledge that happens SOMEWHERE between 25 weeks of gestation and birth. Our science is not entirely sure yet.

However the near totality of choice based abortion in our world as a whole occurs in or before week 12, and certainly by week 16. So I do not see it as morally problematic.

nozzferrahhtoo

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

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.

I was not bringing up any issue of language at all, you misinterpreted that. I was bringing up the issue of lack of arguments supporting the position I described. And that so far people shouting those particular words HAS BEEN the only arguments people tend to offer.

My issue is not with the language they use therefore. My issue is with their presenting the language they use AS their argument. Their hope the language they use will operate in lieu of having to make an argument for their position.

I very rarely care what language people use when making their arguments (there are rare exceptions, but I always justify why they are exceptions). My issue is whether the person is making an argument or not while hiding behind their chosen language.

See the difference now?

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

Defenceless is entirely accurate

No doubt, but it is ALSO entirely accurate when describing a lamb going to slaughter. So again my issue is not the language but the argument it is used to facilitate.

For a word to be useful it has to not apply to everything, otherwise it begs the question about why you are applying it selectively. And if it seems a linguistics move is being made in contexts that suit the speaker and ignored in contexts where it does not..... the honestly of the speaker is called into question, as is the consistency of their position.

Many things in our word are defenceless against the ministrations of our species and our society. The question is when.... and most importantly HOW and WHY..... that should become morally and ethically relevant to us. And how that concern should manifest itself.

What is NOT good is when the speaker is not making an argument but is throwing words like "Defenceless" into the discourse because they know that it is an emotive word and they hope it sparks emotional sympathy in the listener so as to bypass reason and discourse on the matter. THAT is when the use of language becomes a concern when shouting words like "Murder" and "baby" and "defenceless" into the mob.

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

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.

And for me it is the opposite because it shows we are as a species exploring deeper our moral and ethical intuitions and discovering why we hold them and what they even are.

My moral and ethical concern is based solely on the well being of sentient agents. Beings that can experience at some level. Beings that can move along a continuum of extremes of suffering and well being. Beings towards whom our choices and actions can influence their position on that continuum.

The fetus at 12/16 weeks when the near totality of choice based abortion occurs..... are simply not such beings. They are not sentient agents. Not even remotely. They are the sentience equivalence of a rock or a table leg.

Clinging to words like "Human" and "child" and "baby" might trigger your intuitions to bypass that reality fact check..... but it does not make that reality go away either.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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

As do I. I just go one further than that and identify WHY I think that, and on what basis I think that. I do not just think it by default "just coz".

The problem for people against abortion is that not just some, not just most, but all the attributes upon which one can coherently defend that position....... are all the attributes a fetus at 16 weeks simply does not have.

Which is why your throw away line "foetuses are human and cattle aren’t" might sound convincing to you, having not applied the same intellectual rigour to the question as I have. But it is not even remotely convincing to me, nor have I see a single reason why it should be. Least of all from yourself.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

This is a stupidly written paragraph.

So nice of you to pre-label your material with such wonderfully accurate descriptors. Would that more people would do that. It was not just stupidly written though but overly emotional, you might need to calm down a little. Lines like "Everybody knows what the damn question is" is not going to progress the level of mature discourse you requested in the opening pages of this thread. You know, the opening pages where I made a long reply to you which you went on to wholly ignore.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

That is not answering the question however, it is begging the question. You have been asked, including in OTHER posts from me which you also ignored as it happens, why being "separate" and "distinct" is meant to be important in the first place. So your answer is.... at best.... circular..... when you are asked why this distinct fetus should be afforded moral and ethical concern..... your answer is just that this distinct fetus should be afforded moral and ethical concern. Hardly an answer is it? No arguments, no evidence, no data, no reasoning.... just a restatement of the question as an answer.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.”

No my answer is and has been for many years to explore that question. And the exploration entails asking WHY we value any human person at all in the first place. What are the attributes upon which we hang such concerns. Rather than just declare, by decree and fiat as you have, that humans just have inherent worth because they simply do......... I actually go deeper and ask WHY that is.

And I have several answers to the question and several attributes upon which those answers are based. And..... sorry for ya and all..... but not a single one of those attributes is present in a 16 week old fetus.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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

Nope, as I just said above it is YOU re-stating the question AS the answer to the question to avoid addressing my answers to it. Check the mirror because you are making the right accusation, against the wrong source.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

You not agreeing with an argument...... or in this case not even engaging with it given you ignored most of my posts and have not even engaged my argument in the ONE post you deigned to actually reply to eventually......... does not render it incoherent. The argument is perfectly coherent and cogent, you just personally don't like it and can not rebut it.

As for cross examination, that is just laughable. You have not even DONE SO yet. This is the first reply to me you have even bothered o make. Where is the cross examination exactly then??? This is just proof to me that you guys just spout talking points all day long and when it comes time for cross examination you're incapable of doing so so you pretend up front it has already happened when it never actually has.

For shame. For. Absolute. Shame.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

To have a discussion from first principles about whether or not a foetus has the right to life.

To do so it would be worth openly and honestly exploring the "first principles" of rights in the first place. What are they. What are they for. What do they do. And what do we apply them to and why.

You appear to want to bypass much of that and start the discussion about "first principles" with assumptions and defaults in place that are selected specifically to support the conclusions you have already admitted in a number of other posts you hold.

Which is not an open, let alone honest, way to initiate such a discourse.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

This is such pseudoscientific bullcrap.

Actually so is your calling a human being a distinct organism. We are not actually distinct organisms you know. We are a microbiome. A large quantity of your body is made up of non human cells. Cells we would die without as it happens. (Reference: Sender, Ron, Shai Fuchs, and Ron Milo. "Revised estimates for the number of human and bacteria cells in the body." and "Are we really vastly outnumbered? Revisiting the ratio of bacterial to host cells in humans.").

Further the variable part of your DNA.... that which is actually different between you and any other human....... is remarkably tiny relative to the whole. We think of ourselves as getting 50% of DNA from each parent and being then entirely unique. That over states the issue massively. We get 50% of the VARIABLE PORTION from each parent. The vast majority of the DNA strand however is constant between you and any other human individual. And in fact between you and many other species.

Now these real world facts are not morally relevant to ME at all of course because I think your attempts to couch the moral philosophy of ethics, morals and rights in taxonomy is frankly absurd, lazy, pseudo-scientific, untenable and incoherent.

But since I have asked you (and you ignored the post entirely) why being "distinct" is morally relevant in the first place....... it makes the question all the more worth asking on that basis if you do insist on talking the talk of science.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

To everyone that thinks I’m trying to provoke a mean spirited argument

You might wish to reconsider some of your language then. Especially language where you find you have to contrive to deliberately bypass the boards.ie swear filter.

While I am robust in my own use of language, I would never pretend otherwise, I am not sure what progress you will make with words like bullcrap and chickensh1t if your goal is to pre-empty people thinking your agenda is to be mean spirited.

Hotblack Desiato

Sean.3516 wrote: »

My answer to the question was that the foetus is a separate individual human

It's not separate. It can't be separated and survive.

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.

Dunning-Kruger in action.

Hotblack Desiato

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

Defenceless is entirely accurate the child in the womb is dependent on the maternal instinct of the mother

Do you think that women who have an abortion are lacking in "maternal instinct" ?

Deleted User wrote: »

A child isn't capable of independent life until its at least 3 years old.

If a pro-life poster could, just once, not wilfully misinterpret a point made

That'd Be Great.

FeirmeoirtTed

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Do you think that women who have an abortion are lacking in "maternal instinct" ?




Do you think terminating a growing foetus because you don't want it is a maternal act?

PostWoke

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

I'm just here to say the word "foetus" is one of my most hated words, it's up there with "squelch" and "Bae".

Anyway, the first half of "foetus" means 'enemy'.

Carry on.

Don't squelch that foetus, it's my bae.

interactive wrote: »

Car in Dublin ,two stickers on back window.
A dog is not just for Christmas, its for life.
Repeal the Eight.
The woman driver was more concerned about a dog than a unborn baby.

She wants full agency over her body and for other women, to have the same, like we men have. She also doesn't want people dumping animals. The variable here is that she wants to have agency over herself and her life, which most do.

Sean.3516

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

The reason the word "distinct" matters is that the main argument being pushed by pro-choices is that the foetus is merely a part of the woman's body and therefore an abortion is ethically equivalent to the removal of an appendix.

In fact it's not a part of the woman but a "distinct" organism meaning a different organism. i.e. Not the same human. Different body, different DNA. The pretend that none of this changes the ethical equation is disingenuous.

PostWoke

Southwestsouth wrote: »

Does everyone agree then that abortion should be illegal at 12 weeks if technology is developed to allow the foetus to survive and develop to maturity without it's Mother?

Dunno what strange hypotheticals can add to the conversation. Women have literally had babies pop out not even knowing they were pregnant. There was a front page headline a few weeks back in this very country, woman just thought she had back pain. People can have a lot of personal factors in their personal life, and unless you're willing to show up to her doorstep every day to assist in raising the child until they're 18, it's noneyabusiness.

I also feel like we've kind of had this conversation tbh, and if you're angry with the result I am sorry.

A pregnancy not reaching full term is always a tragedy, for at least one individual. Pro-choicers aren't oblivious to this. But 51-52% of the human population aren't vessels you can force your religious or moral beliefs on. They're humans with complicated human lives.

By the way, I read that there was a risk that no legislation would be formally passed by the start of this year related to this vote because of the ineptitude of our representatives, as usual. What happened in the end? Were laws drafted in time?

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The reason the word "distinct" matters is that the main argument being pushed by pro-choices is that the foetus is merely a part of the woman's body and therefore an abortion is ethically equivalent to the removal of an appendix.

There is no "main argument" being pushed by any such group. That might be the "main argument" of two or three posters on the thread. It is not an argument I ever use for example.

So I am not asking you about their argument. I am asking you about the topic of YOUR thread, and asking you if it being "distinct" is at all morally relevant to YOUR claim it should have a right to life.

PostWoke

Southwestsouth wrote: »

Not sure why you think I'm religious, I'm an atheist, neither am I angry with the result.

What I wish to achieve with hypotheticals is to examine the integrity of people's reasoning. People often decide their moral principles based off what they feel is correct and then seek to find reasoning that aligns with that. If someone exposes the inconsistency if their reasoning they then seek some other reasoning why their feelings should be validated.

Sentience, or lack therefore, is often used as a reason to allow abortion. If science were to prove that a 12 week old foetus is sentient I would expect those who use the sentience argument to think of something else to maintain their position rather than change it.

I was talking in generalities, my bad for not being clearer.

But what you're suggesting is science fiction for now, so until the day comes...

Anyone know if we have legislature passed in to law on this topic?

Loafing Oaf

PostWoke wrote: »

By the way, I read that there was a risk that no legislation would be formally passed by the start of this year related to this vote because of the ineptitude of our representatives, as usual. What happened in the end? Were laws drafted in time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_(Regulation_of_Termination_of_Pregnancy)_Act_2018
The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 (Act No. 31 of 2018; previously Bill No. 105 of 2018) is an Act of the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) which defines the circumstances and processes within which abortion may be legally performed in Ireland

The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill was published on 27 September 2018 and signed into law on 20 December 2018. The act came into force on 1 January 2019.

PostWoke

Southwestsouth wrote: »

The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill was published on 27 September 2018 and signed into law on 20 December 2018. The act came into force on 1 January 2019.

A relief.

Always good to remember to be on these feckers' backs either way. They'll try anything.

Southwestsouth wrote: »

It's irrelevant that it is "science fiction", hypothetical situations are useful to examine people's true reasoning.

I disagree. Do you think you're gonna expose that hundreds of thousands of people would just like to see a baby killed please? Come on now.

Hotblack Desiato

PostWoke wrote: »

A pregnancy not reaching full term is always a tragedy

Such emotive nonsense

There is nothing "tragic" about popping a pill in the first trimester to deal with a contraception failure.

By the way, I read that there was a risk that no legislation would be formally passed by the start of this year related to this vote because of the ineptitude of our representatives, as usual. What happened in the end? Were laws drafted in time?

Well there's also the ineptitude of voters who don't bother to inform themselves. I hope if you voted in the referendum you made a bit more of an effort.

Hotblack Desiato

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

Do you think terminating a growing foetus because you don't want it is a maternal act?

No. The woman (cases of FFA/severe disabilty aside) doesn't want to be a mother, at least not at thiis time. It is incorrect to describe her as a mother, unless of course she has children already which IIRC about half of women who have an abortion do.

Most of those who don't already have children will go on to do so, so nothing wrong with their "maternal instinct" either.

In an era of widely available contraception, abortion does not reduce family size. It changes the timing of pregnancies, not their number.

Screw Attack

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The reason the word "distinct" matters is that the main argument being pushed by pro-choices is that the foetus is merely a part of the woman's body and therefore an abortion is ethically equivalent to the removal of an appendix.

In fact it's not a part of the woman but a "distinct" organism meaning a different organism. i.e. Not the same human. Different body, different DNA. The pretend that none of this changes the ethical equation is disingenuous.

So is a tumour.

FeirmeoirtTed

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No. The woman (cases of FFA/severe disabilty aside) doesn't want to be a mother, at least not at thiis time. It is incorrect to describe her as a mother, unless of course she has children already which IIRC about half of women who have an abortion do.

Most of those who don't already have children will go on to do so, so nothing wrong with their "maternal instinct" either.

In an era of widely available contraception, abortion does not reduce family size. It changes the timing of pregnancies, not their number.

Abortion does not change the timing of pregnancy it doesn't postpone pregnancy it ends pregnancy. That foetus has its own unique DNA ending that pregnancy ends that life whether it was male or female. The next pregnancy is not going to be the same foetus.

amdublin

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?

I'm fine with that decision, yes..

amdublin

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

Abortion does not change the timing of pregnancy it doesn't postpone pregnancy it ends pregnancy. That foetus has its own unique DNA ending that pregnancy ends that life whether it was male or female. The next pregnancy is not going to be the same foetus.

Do you think people don't know this?

Outlaw Pete

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The reason the word "distinct" matters...

Nozz knows well why the word matters in the context you are using it and is more than well aware of its moral relevance too. Pointing out every cell of an unborn baby's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the woman's body is not something which he's unfamiliar with, despite the obtuse pretence.

It's just more of the usual obfustication being deployed as a debate tactic so as to avoid having to concede ground. As for them apparently never having heard a "single coherent argument" against their arguments, HA!, and of course it's as ever bookended with "least of all from you". Well, all I can say to that is welcome to the club, as everyone that engages with nozz on this topic eventually has that said to them.

Of course they have heard coherent arguments against their well honed palaver for heaven sake. Multiple times in fact, and from many different users over the years too, but they will just plug up any new holes that get poked in their paper thin philosophical meanderings with yet another well oiled caveat and then act as if their argument hasn't been remotely affected by it at all.

Sentience is of course just a red herring. For years it was ability to feel pain but you don't hear that one all that much these days as the science was increasingly encroaching on where it was that they wanted to support elective abortions being available at. So they've pretty much dropped that now and focused on sentience instead as it keeps the bar (for when it is that we should view a fetus as a human being) nice and high.

Science has often lagged behind common sense though, particularly with regard to the most vulnerable among us. As recently as the mid 1980s many in the scientific community still believed toddlers couldn't feel pain and often refused to use anesthesia as a result.

Written in 1996:

Infant and neonatal pain: Anaesthetists' perceptions and prescribing patterns

Until 10 years ago neonates and infants were assumed to be incapable of perceiving pain and seldom given analgesics for operations. Advances in neonatal analgesic pharmacology and neurobiology, including biochemical stress response studies, have prompted reconsideration of this approach.

We studied the changes in attitude and practice among members of the Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland since an original survey in 1988.

A questionnaire designed to allow comparison with the 1988 survey was sent to the 151 members of the association from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. One hundred and seven questionnaires (71%) were returned for analysis in 1995. There was almost universal agreement that all age groups perceived pain. By contrast, in 1988 eight (13%) respondents thought that newborn infants and four (7%) that neonates did not feel pain. Fourteen (23%) respondents in 1988 were undecided. For major surgery in newborn infants 97 (91%) anaesthetists prescribed systemic opioids in 1995 as compared with six (10%) in 1988. For neonates 98 (92%) anaesthetists used opioids in 1995 as compared with 11 (18%) in 1988.

The historical impression that neonates could not feel pain accounted for the low usage of analgesics even for major surgery. This study shows that paediatric anaesthetists have responded to new data and agree that even the smallest babies can respond to noxious stimuli.

This "new data" didn't fall from the sky of course. Research was carried out in an effort to prove what many in the scientific community already, rationally, knew. Not that anyone's suggesting mere beliefs should be taken as fact without data to back them up, course not, but nor should the lack of data excuse mankind ploughing ahead and acting in such a callous fashion with human beings in utero either. There is certainly visual evidence to support the contention that first trimester fetuses have some level of awareness and that should be enough for us to err on the side of caution, to say the very least.

Such movement (of course) is dismissed off as 'Silent fish' impressions and merely autonomic in nature but that is of course Grade A bull****, indulged in with the clear objective of undermining any research that dares to cite such movement. Dehumanizing the fetus is the name of the game, hence expressions such as 'blobs of biological matter' and 'clumps of cells' being used to describe fetuses, even when well into the second trimester, and often beyond that in the more extreme cases of ignorance.

Those that speak about lack of sentience as a justification for killing human beings in the womb do so as if there is only one take on just what sentience is too, which is bizarre, as there are many of course. Some scientists and philosophers argue that flies, worms, and even plants are sentient. Therefore, whenever the word sentient is used by a prochoicer, as some kind of justification for stilling the heartbeat of a developing human being, they should really do so only if the word is in quotation marks and has an asterix alongside, so that at the end of their post they can declare just what it is that they mean by a sentient being.

A first trimester fetus is a living human being, that is a fact. Focus is forever put on what an early stage fetus is not capable of but this is a mistake (and of course a deliberate one). Focus should really be put on what early stage fetuses are capable of, as that is just as important, if not more so. Those with an agenda tell us movement up to (and long after) 8-12 weeks is all purely autonomic but this is of course rubbish. One only has to view ectopic pregnancy footage (see below) or even early ultrasounds to become aware that a good portion of the movement on display is clearly purposeful and voluntary in nature and far from merely autonomic.

There is simply no justification for the claim that we as humanity should only have moral concern for developing human beings when they've reached the stage of development many here declare / endorse. None. If such a level of mental capabilities determined what they suggest it to, then they would never eat a lamb or kill a mouse, but they do (mostly, vegans get a pass) so then it's not mere sentience which results in us humans having a moral regard for another being at all, there are many factors at play, the biggest of all of which is quite clearly: are they a human being or not, as that is far and away the number 1 criteria for why a human being will automatically have a moral concern for another being.


tl;dr

THIS is a human being and YES we should have a moral concern for them as even though this is human being in the first trimester, it's still their only ONE chance at life and it should not be taken away unless there is an ethical reason for doing so (medical necessity, humane reasoning etc).

<edit> NSFW Image/Video removed

Hotblack Desiato

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

Abortion does not change the timing of pregnancy it doesn't postpone pregnancy it ends pregnancy.

Well lah-di-dah, I said pregnancy when I should have said birth. Doesn't negate what I said though.

That foetus has its own unique DNA ending that pregnancy ends that life whether it was male or female. The next pregnancy is not going to be the same foetus.

So what.

Coulda shoulda woulda.

Nobody knows about the fertilised eggs that don't implant, the ones that do but become nothing more than a "late period".

None of us would have been born if a different one out of millions of sperm had won the race. Someone else might have. All of us are only here by chance and we really need to get the fcuk over ourselves and the idea of a "right" to be born.

FeirmeoirtTed

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well lah-di-dah, I said pregnancy when I should have said birth. Doesn't negate what I said though.



So what.

Coulda shoulda woulda.

Nobody knows about the fertilised eggs that don't implant, the ones that do but become nothing more than a "late period".

None of us would have been born if a different one out of millions of sperm had won the race. Someone else might have. All of us are only here by chance and we really need to get the fcuk over ourselves and the idea of a "right" to be born.

Which is surely all the more reason to treat life as being precious rather than devaluing it,

Hotblack Desiato

A woman's life is worth far more than a zygote, embryo or foetus - but the 8th amendment equated them.