Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should a foetus have the right to life?
Options
Comments
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Such emotive nonsense
There is nothing "tragic" about popping a pill in the first trimester to deal with a contraception failure.
A life was not allowed to be, whether for socio-economic reasons, or health reasons, or other reasons. That is still tragic. You got your chance, another didn't. I hope you actually read my post and realize I'm not an anti-choicer at all, it's just always sad that these things have to happen.0 -
After going through three miscarriages with my wife I couldn't raise myself to expel a shiny shyte on behalf of the unwanted pregnancies of other people. It's their choice. We wanted ours, but had to accept that it wasn't meant to be for them. The catholic hospital treated them as medical waste and the unspoken response was "shrug your shoulders and try again" - which we did, successfully in the end.
Look, we're not one bit sentimental and aren't looking for funerals for miscarriages or any crap like that, but it fcuking grates to hear the catholic crowd going on about the sanctity of the unborn when they and the hospitals they control don't give a sh1t and won't offer any help at all when you're going through a threatened or actual miscarriage.© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »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.
Maybe you should let nozz tell people what he thinks and knows rather than talking about him in the third person so as to avoid replying to him yourself, and putting words in his mouth that do not actually match his position on the matter at all? Because that would be.... you know..... the honest thing to do?
No, I do not think the word "Distinct" matters in the contexts it is being used at all. Despite your obtuse pretence. I do not know why they think it does. Despite your obtuse pretence.
A strand of DNA being unique..... but only if it is human not if it is any DNA from anything else...... is a position that entirely begs the question and is an expression of the assertions the OP came to this forum to make rather than any explanation or defence of those assertions. Despite your obtuse pretence.Outlaw Pete wrote: »It's just more of the usual obfustication being deployed as a debate tactic so as to avoid having to concede ground.
No, that is just your tactic to be honest. All you manage to do is make posts with the same couple of graphics and you tube videos over and over again, while doing pointless obfuscation posts like taking issue with posts I made ten YEARS ago so you can avoid giving ground to, or deal with the points made in, the posts I make today.Outlaw Pete wrote: »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
Except I have not. I can tell you all the arguments I have EVER heard against my position on abortion. The list follows now. Let me know if I missed anything since you seem to know better than I do which arguments I have or have not heard. I am agog.
1) Words like "human" "baby" "murder" "killing" "life" "distinct" and "unique" get shouted at me a lot.
2) Images or videos of the fetus, or misrepresentative descriptive texts of bits of it like it's tongue.
3) Attacks on the mother such as saying she must not be maternal enough.
4) Attacks on the mother such as saying she is selfish or making choices from personal convenience.
5) Attacks on the mother saying she is using abortion as contraception.
6) Declarations based on nothing that something not sentient has the right to BECOME sentient.
What have I missed???Outlaw Pete wrote: »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
Firstly you just shout "red herring" and then run away from my replies when I question your basis for saying so. So repeating this over and over and then retreating is not likely to convince anyone.
Secondly however you show your MASSIVE misunderstanding of the underlying science in the above sentences. The "ability to feel pain" and "sentience" are for the most part the exact same thing. You blatantly show above you do not understand this. If there is no sentience or consciousness there, there is NO ONE there to experience the pain at all.
This is a failure of scientific understanding you have shown before though, and had corrected many times before, but you cling to it all the same. Mainly because you wish to misrepresent the fetus responding to stimulus, including pain stimulus, as being indicative of awareness and consciousness and sentience. A misrepresentation of reality you have peddled often.
You have had the difference between experience of pain, and autonomic responses to stimulus, explained to you multiple times. Alas it conflicts with your narratives so deeply you have been forced to simply ignore it for years. Which just makes your false claims above that I have been ignoring the arguments of others all the more comical.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Dehumanizing the fetus is the name of the game
Quite the opposite in fact is true as has also been explained to you for many years. Refusing to "humanize" it when YOU want..... just because your entire scientific knowledge on the subject of autonomic responses is summed up in the use of phrases like "Grade A bull****"....... is not dehumanizing it at all.
No, the reality is that my position is not dehumanizing anything. Rather it humanizes the fetus at the time it is actually right to do so. And it does so in such a way that once its rights come online at all..... that we value those rights in a way that is immune to any nonsense of racism, religion, handicap, or any of the other arbitrary crap the human species has historically used to rank one human being above or below another.
My position in other words is the very essence of humanism. Your pretence otherwise is as comical as it is ineffectual. Do try harder.Outlaw Pete wrote: »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.
Sure some do, and they are capable in a way you are not to explain why they think that. Not a SINGLE argument from them that I have seen however suggests that sentience is present in a 12 week old human fetus however. So the one flinging red herrings around is, as usual, you. Which is likely why you are so keen to imagine red herrings in others.
The question to be asked..... once all the red herrings have been fried up and had for dinner..... is what prerequisites are required to be in place before we might suspect something..... be it a fly or a fetus or an elephant or a rock or an artificial intelligence..... is conscious or sentient. The people suspecting a fly might have a level of sentience would be quick to point out their list of pre-requisites and how the fly HAS them.
The problem for your narrative is none of the prerequisites we appear to be currently aware of are present in a fetus at 12 weeks. So your comparisons to flies is simply fatuous.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Focus should really be put on what early stage fetuses are capable of, as that is just as important, if not more so.
Not much would be the answer to that. Worse though, everything it IS capable of.... there are organisms all over our planet capable of the same things, at a higher level, and much more besides. The average cow on a pasture is capable of all the same things, and much much more, than a 12 week old fetus.
So your guff here begs the question quite deeply. If we are to value something based on such capabilities..... then why do we not value ALL organisms that share, or exceed, those capabilities? The answer appears to be "Cuz one gives Pete the feelz and the others dont". Which is, as you might expect, not a convincing basis for discourse on the matter.
No, to value one organism over another, that organism really requires capabilities that exceed or distinguish it from all the other organisms. Humans have such attributes. They simply are not present at 12 weeks of gestation however. Bully for you I guess.Outlaw Pete wrote: »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.
And again you quote ZERO science for your position. All you do is select imagery that LOOKS like what you want it to look like. You can shout "rubbish" all you like at positions other people express. But until you actually rebut their position rather than simply assert what things "clearly look like" to you personall..... then the only one spouting rubbish is you, yourself, thy ownself, and you.
But by all means show me ONE piece of evidence that the movement in the footage you so dearly love to paste into every thread is "voluntary". You know evidence other than "Well it looks like it to me!!!". I suspect you got NOTHING and will simply ignore the challenge. Go on prove me right again as you are so wont to do in the past.0 -
FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »That foetus has its own unique DNA
I asked the OP why this is relevant, but he has not been able to answer. Perhaps you can.FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »The next pregnancy is not going to be the same foetus.
Again, why is this relevant or interesting?FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »Which is surely all the more reason to treat life as being precious rather than devaluing it,
No one is devaluing it that I have seen. What is actually happening is people are not valuing it for the same arbitrary reasons you are, or at the same arbitrary times you are.
The problem being that how and when I value it is something I can explain at great length. But when I ask people like yourself and the OP to do similar I get a lot of "just because" kind of answers.0 -
Women have always been regarded as more important than the foetus, what has not always been regarded as more important is the right to abort.
Yeah right of course they are, and not just in Ireland.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3276386/Catholic-hospital-denies-pregnant-mother-three-suffering-brain-tumor-life-saving-sterilization-treatment-religious-grounds.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/05/07/health-care-denied-at-550-hospitals-because-of-catholic-doctrine/0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Similar to how we get a "just because" answer when you declare that your variety of sentience is the determining factor.
Hello new user. You have never asked me that question though have you? Being a new user and all?
Perhaps you can have the decency therefore to ASK me a question and listen to my answer, before pre-declaring what you want to imagine my answer is going to be?
Might that not be a more honest approach than the completely not honest at all one you just pulled?
Also what specifically is MY variety of sentience? What other varieties are there that you would contrast it with?0 -
Women have always been regarded as more important than the foetus
Not according to the 8th amendment
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.what has not always been regarded as more important is the right to abort.
No, but we had a vote last year, remember?© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
-
I've read through much of the thread, you have written enormous paragraphs on the subject. You declare that sentience is the determining factor because you say so.
Nope. You either did not read the tread as claimed, or not that carefully. What I ACTUALLY said, and it was even in the post from me you quoted above was:
"The problem being that how and when I value it is something I can explain at great length. But when I ask people like yourself and the OP to do similar I get a lot of "just because" kind of answers."
Rather than actually open a line of discourse with me to explore that, you chose instead to pre-declare what you imagine my answer will or would be. Which as I said..... not the most honest start to the discussion from you here.
I also in many posts on this thread gave reasons already why I think this way. None of them were "just because I say so" either.
So rather than ask me why I think it is the determining factor, you decided to tell me why I think it is.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »After going through three miscarriages with my wife I couldn't raise myself to expel a shiny shyte on behalf of the unwanted pregnancies of other people. It's their choice. We wanted ours, but had to accept that it wasn't meant to be for them. The catholic hospital treated them as medical waste and the unspoken response was "shrug your shoulders and try again" - which we did, successfully in the end.
Look, we're not one bit sentimental and aren't looking for funerals for miscarriages or any crap like that, but it fcuking grates to hear the catholic crowd going on about the sanctity of the unborn when they and the hospitals they control don't give a sh1t and won't offer any help at all when you're going through a threatened or actual miscarriage.
I'm not religious. What you went through is a tragedy. Not a worldwide one, but a personal one, for you and your wife. That was my point, and having gone through three I cannot fathom how you can sit here and argue with me that the loss of a child isn't tragic. I'm very much pro-choice, tolerate religion at best, and made a very uncontroversial comment that you see to have been confused by. I'm saying a pregnancy not being able to come to term is always a tragedy, but unavoidable sometimes. I'm not saying we act to prevent this tragedy in a way that infringes on others' rights.0 -
Well I don't agree
A neonatal death is a tragedy, certainly
An early miscarriage is just not on the same plane. At all.
We didn't lose "a child" - a potential child - the hope that that pregnancy would work out. But we knew we could conceive again within months if not weeks, and had already had one successful and pretty smooth pregnancy so there was no reason another one wouldn't work out sooner or later.
If we had been trying for years, on IVF etc then the loss of that hope would have been felt more strongly, but that doesn't change the fact that a first trimester embryo is very far away from being a child and it doesn't help anyone, certainly not a miscarrying woman, to pretend that it's something it isn't.
If any of those three had 'worked out', our youngest wouldn't be here, we were always pretty certain we wanted to stop at two. Sure, it was an unpleasant experience to go through but it made us stronger and we can't imagine having a different child instead of him.© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Well I don't agree
A neonatal death is a tragedy, certainly
An early miscarriage is just not on the same plane. At all.
Say you've been trying for ages, it finally looks like it's happening, you've started telling a few people, and then **** goes sideways, for reasons as unjust as you are very stressed at work, and that doesn't qualify for you? A woman desperately trying to hold on to her child, bleeding in a bathroom by herself in a serious amount of distress doesn't qualify as a tragedy for you? Again, I'm not talking about worldwide tragedies here, personal tragedies exist. And I know a woman or two who had experiences like I just mentioned that were very, very impacted for a very long time by having to go through something like that.
This is a very weird hill you're choosing to die on.0 -
Say you've been trying for ages, it finally looks like it's happening, you've started telling a few people, and then **** goes sideways, for reasons as unjust as you are very stressed at work, and that doesn't qualify for you? A woman desperately trying to hold on to her child, bleeding in a bathroom by herself in a serious amount of distress doesn't qualify as a tragedy for you? Again, I'm not talking about worldwide tragedies here, personal tragedies exist. And I know a woman or two who had experiences like I just mentioned that were very, very impacted for a very long time by having to go through something like that.
This is a very weird hill you're choosing to die on.
there are infinite scenarios and you've just given one example0 -
It's over, lads and lassies
The 8th is repealed, abortion on demand is available like any other form of female healthcare.
Done.0 -
It's over, lads and lassies
The 8th is repealed, abortion on demand is available like any other form of female healthcare.
Done.
Agreed, apart from your some of your wording. It's not like there are abortion tools sold in vending machines, there are still laws and practices in place to prevent the suffering of both mother and foetus/child/whatever yer havin'.0 -
They don't exactly sell smear kits in that manner either, what's your pointAgreed, apart from your some of your wording. It's not like there are abortion tools sold in vending machines, there are still laws and practices in place to prevent the suffering of both mother and foetus/child/whatever yer havin'.0 -
My point is that you are misrepresenting the ease of getting an abortion, and misrepresenting how serious we still regard it in this country. It's still treated with seriousness and respect.0
-
-
Say you've been trying for ages, it finally looks like it's happening, you've started telling a few people, and then **** goes sideways, for reasons as unjust as you are very stressed at work, and that doesn't qualify for you? A woman desperately trying to hold on to her child, bleeding in a bathroom by herself in a serious amount of distress doesn't qualify as a tragedy for you? Again, I'm not talking about worldwide tragedies here, personal tragedies exist. And I know a woman or two who had experiences like I just mentioned that were very, very impacted for a very long time by having to go through something like that.
This is a very weird hill you're choosing to die on.
Wow, do you usually go around telling people who have been through medical issues what they should be thinking and feeling according to you? What form of words is acceptable according to you? That you know better than them?
Or is this something you reserve for female reproductive issues?© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Advertisement
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Wow, do you usually go around telling people who have been through medical issues what they should be thinking and feeling according to you? What form of words is acceptable according to you? That you know better than them?
It's actually you doing this. Because you felt nothing, you are trying to word police my usage of the word 'tragic'. Seriously think about it for a second. Oblivious.Screw Attack wrote: »Really? Ireland's abortion law is actually pretty soft. What is that? first 12 weeks?
How is that soft, full term is 40 weeks and some places do 28 weeks in serious cases.0 -
The international EU standard seems around 12 weeks on demand (except UK)It's actually you doing this. Because you felt nothing, you are trying to word police my usage of the word 'tragic'. Seriously think about it for a second. Oblivious.
How is that soft, full term is 40 weeks and some places do 28 weeks in serious cases.
We have 12 weeks on demand and up to birth if in danger to life of mother.
The latter is of course, tragic, but the former is perfectly in line with normal healthcare in other civilized countries0 -
It's actually you doing this. Because you felt nothing, you are trying to word police my usage of the word 'tragic'. Seriously think about it for a second. Oblivious.
Hold on. You said an abortion is ALWAYS a tragedy. It is not. For some people it is a relief.
You are clearly the one trying to ram your opinion down everyone else's neck here.
I said that not everyone's experience of miscarriage will have been the same as ours. I didn't say we felt nothing, either.
Stop putting words in my mouth thanks.
Seeing as though you also claimed not to know whether legislation was passed or not, which was the biggest news story in Ireland in the last couple of months of last year, I'm starting to wonder why you think anyone would listen to someone who is so ill-informed on this subject.© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Hold on. You said an abortion is ALWAYS a tragedy. It is not. For some people it is a relief.
No I didn't, so please stop with the projecting accusations that I'm 'putting words in your mouth', I said a pregnancy not going to full term for whatever reason is always a tragedy.
That doesn't mean the person requesting can't be relieved.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »You are clearly the one trying to ram your opinion down everyone else's neck here.
More projection. I don't give a hoot what you think, so I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and you can keep your 'everyone here' to yourself. You're the one deadset on an argument and I'm sorry, but you're just not getting it. What I said is the most inoffensive statement. The act of having to terminated a pregnancy is tragic, even if the person having it done is relieved. If only because it happened for socio-economic societal reasons, or that we got our chance (and this is how you're using yours, btw) but another didn't.
Get some help for your anger issues my dude. What I'm saying is really, really not that controversial... two pages now. Get over it.0 -
Oh right so you get to say what's what and no-one else is allowed to say any different lest they be accused of "anger issues".
:rolleyes:© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 71647
-
How is that soft, full term is 40 weeks and some places do 28 weeks in serious cases.
Waaay behind on the thread, but just on this, even as little as two-three years go you would have even had most prochoicers baulking at the suggestion that there would be support for very late stage abortions being available. The debate then tended to be around justifying abortion at 16-20 weeks or so, but now, especially coming out of the states, I am noticing a worrying increase of those suggesting abortion should be available right up to birth.
For example recently Pete Buttigieg, who's a mayor running for president, made the following remark in a radio interview, which was suggestive that he might be okay with very late stage abortions:
https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1170055702733381634
Actually, the host here, Lenard McKelvey, said something which I thought was very revealing also, and which was something I have noticed myself over the years (and during the referendum in particular) that the guys that would be posting all the 'Trust women' and 'Men shouldn't have a say' etc, all over their social media (and that invariably got a lot of social cachet for it in return) were the very guys who would treat women like crap. I knew this as these were guys I grew up with and who I know to largely be sleazebags over the years to women, to say the least, and yet here they were pretending they were progressive men, all about women have 'control over the reproductive rights' and so forth.
Well, McKelvey reminds me of those guys, as he too is always putting himself forward as a guy who believes in women having a choice and how abortion is nobody business but the woman's etc ..... but note how the mask slips towards the end of that clip and what you see is, what I believe, is the real reason men like McKelvey pretend to be all about women's reproductive rights, which is of course purely for their own selfish reasons, as women having easy access to abortion means that they have something of a safety net should they, as McKelvey puts it, "get the wrong woman pregnant".
His full comment is:"I think that if you're a man who is against abortion you haven't gotten the wrong women pregnant... I'm just sayin, you have a few slip ups, I've had a few"
And with that we see the real reason McKelvey is happy abortion is so freely available, as it means he can no doubt just drive one of these "wrong women" to a clinic and not face up to the responsibility that he has created another human being. Just get rid of them, problem solved. Which reminds me of what old school feminists (who were mostly prolife) used to say about abortion back in the day and thankfully there are still some of those feminist groups around today who feel the same way as those women did back then.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »I am noticing a worrying increase of those suggesting abortion should be available right up to birth.
While that is not something I support I think you over state what pro choice people would have "baulked" at 2 or 3 years ago. I think we are more accepting and aware of things you aren't. The trends that are worrying you are not all that worrying at all.
Why?
Well there have been statistics on when women choose to have abortions (as opposed to when they require them from some medical necessity) and the statistics are pretty much constant regardless of whether abortion in a given jurisdiction is entirely illegal, legal with cut offs, or legal with no cut offs. It remains that the near totality of women have those abortions in or before week 12.
When you move from a jurisdiction like the UK and certain areas of the US where there are limits like 12 or 24 weeks..... to one like, say, Canada..... the reality of when women ACTUALLY have those abortions does not change.Outlaw Pete wrote: »And with that we see the real reason McKelvey is happy abortion is so freely available
And he is just one single crass person. Both sides have them. I am not seeing why this is relevant really. I am on occasion happy to point out the worst individuals too, but I am usually clear I am not doing so to tarnish anyone OTHER than that individuals arguments. I fear you do it with the hope to tarnish the majority with the words or actions of the few by generalising it to this nebulous group of "guys" you claim to have experienced, without reference or citation of course.
For example one of the worst, most mysognistic, ill thought out, nonsense arguments I have heard against abortion was a guy who suggested abortion is bad because Working Class Women will not be motivated to better themselves in life if they are not forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies, and not only should they not have abortions therefore they should not have social welfare or single parent allowances either. This is what I call the "Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu" argument. a fetishization and even protection of suffering in order to motivate others to some personal standard of higher being.
That is as AWFUL an argument as I have ever heard perpetuated on the subject on just about every level. Because working class women do not need middle aged privileged white dudes telling them how to make their life better for a start. And enforcing suffering on people to motivate them to do better by YOUR standards is sick really. It was sick when Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu did it. It is sick as an abortion argument.
Yet I am quick to point out too that in all my years discussing this topic...... with 100s maybe into the 1000s of people........ that this argument came from ONE single person. Just one. I have never heard it before. I have never heard it since. It was literally one person. I do not see that abject guff as being even remotely representative of anything but ONE single person.
The guy in the video put it crassly. But he is essentially putting it correctly all the same. If you are seeking an abortion for an unplanned or crisis pregnancy then yes.... that means the pregnancy is in the wrong person at the wrong time. His way of phrasing that is crass as hell, I grant you. But he is essentially saying something accurate. That quite often the people who are against X, tend only to be against X until the day comes when they need X themselves. Then suddenly they are all for it. He was pointing out double standards and hypocrisy but you skipped past that to try and explode out of proportion some kind of sexism and objectification of women.
He is not eloquent for sure. But he is not wrong either.0 -
<snip> If you wish to discuss moderation, PM me, do not comment in-thread - BeastyHotblack Desiato wrote: »Oh right so you get to say what's what and no-one else is allowed to say any different lest they be accused of "anger issues".
:rolleyes:
I get to share my opinions and completely uncontroversial comments and expect it is not met with ceaseless harassment and words being put in my mouth, while in turn being accused of doing that myself, yes.0 -
Advertisement
-
How is that soft, full term is 40 weeks and some places do 28 weeks in serious cases.
Sorry, I was speaking from an anti abortion perspective. Yes, it's absolute horse s hit that there are religious freaks who believe that a tiny embryo 1-12 weeks is a "person". I was right when I said in the past that pro-lifers should never be trusted since they're religious freaks, not rational people.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement