Should a foetus have the right to life?

gandalf

I campaigned and voted to repeal the 8th. I was fully aware what that entailed.

I personally do not like abortion but I'm a man I will never face an unwanted pregnancy and tbh I shouldn't have any power over what a women deems is right for her own body. If that woman disagrees with abortion then she can choose to keep the foetus, bring it to term and have the baby.

As for the foetus once the pregnancy passes 12 weeks then it is protected unless there is serious consequences for the womans health or the foetus is not viable outside the womb due to a FFA.

Faugheen

Anyone who still argues that women shouldn't be allowed to seek a termination in this country wants to control them.

If you claim you don't want to control women, then you wouldn't raise these 'concerns' when the argument has been done to death.

Pherekydes

Sean.3516 wrote: »

If the answer is yes, then there’s a case for limiting abortion only to threat to life cases, if the answer is no, then there ought to be as few restrictions as possible.

Do you agree with abortion in certain instances?

If so, then is it just the ones that you approve of?

What gives you, or anyone else, this authority?

Donnielighto

Donnielighto wrote: »

If you start using those lines of logic it can go down dark places.

like what

We need to admit the cognitive dissonance on this one and just face up that we are ending life,

i dont ever remember anyone saying otherwise at any stage.

it's not a bad thing as the life hasn't done anything yet

thats not really the argumentand its neither a good nor a bad thing, its just a thing

but nearly all the arguments that show a foetus isn't deserving of the right to life can be applied to adult humans in bad circumstances.

except the one put forward repeatedly in the thread, which you are declining to address?

We just need to face up to what it is and be ok with that.

im not sure youve earned the pandering tone tbh, maybe if you bravely faced the actual argument instead of defining it vaguely/insensibly as suited you, you could adopt such a position of stoic leadership (usually done from the front fyi, not a year behind)

AulWan

No.

mickuhaha

Just wanted to respond to the sentiment in the last few posts. The idea of women need abortion or we are trying to control them is stupid in my opinion. That's why we have a governing society. It is meant to create rules that everyone is expected to follow , even if you dislike them. That is a form of control. The idea of the rules is that society is improved as a result for the population. That brings me to my second point. Men can have a choice in relation to the rules in that society. In this case you don't need to be a woman to understand the situation of abortion .(most) humans have empathy and have the ability to put ourselves in others shoes.

osarusan

I think the question should be 'When should the foetus have a right to life?'

Vast majority who are in favour of legalised abortion would still be against abortions in the 38th week, for example.

There are some people who are either for or against it without any exceptions obviously, but my guess is that most people change their minds somewhere between weeks 10 and 24, and their reasoning is based on either sentience or viability outside the womb.

I posted this elsewhere a few months ago, but future medical advancements may mean that a foetus can be removed from the womb at an early stage (say week 6) but carried to term in an artificial womb.

I think a development like that will bring about another stage in the abortion debate, as, to a certain extent, it will negate the 'my body my choice' argument, as a termination of the pregnancy at week 10 for example, doesn't have to mean the death of the foetus.

lawred2

Sean.3516 wrote: »

To everyone that thinks I’m trying to provoke a mean spirited argument or re-litigate the entire referendum debate we had last year, I’M NOT.

What I noticed in that campaign was the debates seemed more focused on statistics of how many women were travelling to England and both sides impugning each other’s motives in cynical fashion and less focused on an actual honest debate from first principles on the most important question which is “Should the foetus/unborn human have the right to life?”

If the answer is yes, then there’s a case for limiting abortion only to threat to life cases, if the answer is no, then there ought to be as few restrictions as possible.


Most of the grandstanding talking points seemed to fly right over this question.

Even the No Campaign whom I have significant criticisms of (for putting out bad dubious info on cancer and infertility complications from abortions and for just being crap overly self-assured debaters) were hopeless at framing the debate.

So hopefully there’ll be an honest discussion that will lead to some enlightenment.


(For anyone saying “you guys lost the referendum, get over it” all I have to say is that the Pro-Choicers lost in 1983 by precisely the same proportion that the Pro-Lifer’s lost by in 2018, and they were not shut down, they kept campaigning for their cause as they had the right to do. The nature of a free republic is that an issue can and should be discussed openly as long as there are people who care about it and we ought not to shut down a debate based on an appeal to popularity.)

Yet that's exactly what you're going to achieve so why?

splinter65

lawred2 wrote: »

Yet that's exactly what you're going to achieve so why?

You do know that the argument is never ever going to go away?
And that as medical science in the field of neonatal medicine advances at the rate it is the argument will get tougher and tougher?
I can’t understand why the repeal people thought that was the end of it.
When repeal lost in 83 that wasn’t the end of it either.
Roe vs Wade has never been over.

Akrasia

This fundamentally breaks down to the concept of personhood. Is a foetus a person, what makes a person a person, when does a person stop being a person.

We used to define alive as a function of when a heart is still beating, but with artificial respiration we can keep people ‘alive’ for years even if their brain is no longer functioning on any cognitive capacity. So we choose to define death differently so we can allow people to pass on when their personhood is gone

It’s extremely difficult to argue that an early stage embryo or foetus bears the characteristics to qualify as a person. This is why pro life philosophers talk about them as potential persons and then try to justify giving potential persons an equal right to life as an actual person. This is a silly argument.

It is also difficult to argue that a late stage foetus isn’t a person, especially after the point where they could survive outside of the womb without intensive neonatal incubation causing long term developmental damage.

Because the personhood status is a grey area, the solution needs to be a compromise which is what most civilized countries have arrived at. Free access to abortion at the earliest stages of pregnancy with more restrictions as the foetus becomes viable while preserving the pregnant woman’s right to life as superseding the foetus

pinkyeye

pinkyeye wrote: »

If people who voted yes didn't know what they were voting for then that's their problem for not reading up enough.

I for one knew exactly what we were voting for. There was never any doubt and I don't know where you're getting the idea that things changed after the vote??

Basically the vote was to remove any constitutional rights for a fetus inside the mother's womb up to the time of birth. That's why I voted no. If it had retained some rights I would have voted yes. It left the door wide open for the government to make any law it liked, from a complete ban to aborting healthy babies hours before birth.

The lesson is to learn what you are actually voting for.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

This fundamentally breaks down to the concept of personhood. Is a foetus a person, what makes a person a person, when does a person stop being a person.

We used to define alive as a function of when a heart is still beating, but with artificial respiration we can keep people ‘alive’ for years even if their brain is no longer functioning on any cognitive capacity. So we choose to define death differently so we can allow people to pass on when their personhood is gone

It’s extremely difficult to argue that an early stage embryo or foetus bears the characteristics to qualify as a person. This is why pro life philosophers talk about them as potential persons and then try to justify giving potential persons an equal right to life as an actual person. This is a silly argument.

It is also difficult to argue that a late stage foetus isn’t a person, especially after the point where they could survive outside of the womb without intensive neonatal incubation causing long term developmental damage.

Because the personhood status is a grey area, the solution needs to be a compromise which is what most civilized countries have arrived at. Free access to abortion at the earliest stages of pregnancy with more restrictions as the foetus becomes viable while preserving the pregnant woman’s right to life as superseding the foetus

Why could we not have put this in the constitution like other human rights?

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why could we not have put this in the constitution like other human rights?

How does a person who is raped have their right to an abortion, then?

People need to realise that the 12 weeks thing was to allow people who became pregnant via rape to have a termination without having to go through the trauma of their attack all over again.

You can't put a provision for something like this in the constitution because then it would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in court.

Besides, why don't people just mind their own business? If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one.

People whip themselves into a frenzy thinking this vote forces abortion on people. It doesn't. Don't have one if you don't want one but don't sneer at women who do decide to have one for whatever reason they choose.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

How does a person who is raped have their right to an abortion, then?

People need to realise that the 12 weeks thing was to allow people who became pregnant via rape to have a termination without having to go through the trauma of their attack all over again.

You can't put a provision for something like this in the constitution because then it would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in court.

Besides, why don't people just mind their own business? If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one.

People whip themselves into a frenzy thinking this vote forces abortion on people. It doesn't. Don't have one if you don't want one but don't sneer at women who do decide to have one for whatever reason they choose.

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

iamwhoiam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Basically the vote was to remove any constitutional rights for a fetus inside the mother's womb up to the time of birth. That's why I voted no. If it had retained some rights I would have voted yes. It left the door wide open for the government to make any law it liked, from a complete ban to aborting healthy babies hours before birth.

The lesson is to learn what you are actually voting for.

Yes because aborting healthy babies hours before birth is actually going to happen . How exactly do you abort a baby hours before birth then ?

iamwhoiam

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Yes because aborting healthy babies hours before birth is actually going to happen . How exactly do you abort a baby hours before birth then ?

That's what they said in 30s Germany. In Stalinist Russia. And if we are to believe CNN in Trump's America. Do you believe an unborn child should have no rights at all? Because that's what our constitution says.

I am sure its not difficult technically to abort a 9 month unborn baby.

There is nothing to stop a future government making abortion completely illegal. Are you fine with that?

Plumbthedepths

Deleted User wrote:

The lesson is to learn what you are actually voting for.

Knew exactly what I voted for , move on.

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

You do know that the argument is never ever going to go away?
And that as medical science in the field of neonatal medicine advances at the rate it is the argument will get tougher and tougher?
I can’t understand why the repeal people thought that was the end of it.
When repeal lost in 83 that wasn’t the end of it either.
Roe vs Wade has never been over.

It doesn't have to go away. We can continue to have votes on it all you want. If the vote went the other way, I certainly wouldn't have given up.

No side is going to meet in the middle. The them and us divide is far too deep.

But for as long as there are votes I will always go for the option that offers choice to women.

iamwhoiam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's what they said in 30s Germany. In Stalinist Russia. And if we are to believe CNN in Trump's America.

There is nothing to stop a future government making abortion completely illegal. Are you fine with that?

No . I am not fine with that but its not even a reality so why even mention it
If we get to have a Stalin type government I can start worrying then

iamwhoiam

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No . I am not fine with that but its not even a reality so why even mention it
If we get to have a Stalin type government I can start worrying then

Well you would have put the conditions in place to make it possible.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Knew exactly what I voted for , move on.

You made it easier to have a complete ban on abortion. Good for you.

Hannibal_Smith

Deleted User wrote: »

Well you would have put the conditions in place to make it possible.

If we have a stalin type government, abortion really will be the least of my worries.

Hannibal_Smith

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

If we have a stalin type government, abortion really will be the least of my worries.

That's why we have a constitution, to prevent that kind of thing

It surprised me at the time and still does the level of ignorance shown by both sides of the abortion debate. Bored with this now.

Hannibal_Smith

Deleted User wrote: »

It surprised me at the time and still does the level of ignorance shown by both sides of the abortion debate.

What like hysterical hypothetical nonsense? The fear of future Stalin type governments being the reason you voted no? :rolleyes:

Plumbthedepths

Deleted User wrote:

You made it easier to have a complete ban on abortion. Good for you.

You clearly have no idea where Ireland as a society is now. A ban will not happen in my lifetime , although you are free to enjoy your delusion. ;-)

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

You made it easier to have a complete ban on abortion. Good for you.

This is fine - if such an unlikely throwback government is voted in by the people then it's perfectly ok that they legislate this way.

For many of us the most important part of the vote was getting the reference to abortion out of the constitution. It's a complex multi-layered issue and it doesn't really fit the constitution which is really just a document of soundbites or summations. The abortion issue belongs in legislation and legislation can be changed more quickly as we know.

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

You're talking about putting definitions and other sh*te in our constitution, and I'm telling you why you can't.

As for your Stalin government nonsense...

the_syco

Sean.3516 wrote: »

If the answer is yes, then there’s a case for limiting abortion only to threat to life cases, if the answer is no, then there ought to be as few restrictions as possible.

If the foetus has "a right to life", then it overrides the mothers right to life.

iamwhoiam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well you would have put the conditions in place to make it possible.

You still haven’t answered my question . How exactly do you abort a full term baby hours before birth ? Are you actually talking about induction then murder ? Because you do know it is not even a reality don’t you . Its not going to happen

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Basically the vote was to remove any constitutional rights for a fetus inside the mother's womb up to the time of birth. That's why I voted no. If it had retained some rights I would have voted yes. It left the door wide open for the government to make any law it liked, from a complete ban to aborting healthy babies hours before birth.

The lesson is to learn what you are actually voting for.

you seem to be presuming that your interpretation and fears are somehow superior to the interpretation of anyone who voted against you.

it doesnt matter, because 2:1, but it may be worth considering that people just knew what they wanted and voted for it.

shesty

"The foetus"."The mother"
Actual people....loads of grey areas.If it was as black and white as you seem to be thinking it is, life would be so much easier...

Ironicname

I'm curious to find out from pro abortion people, when exactly is it ok to allow abortion?

Is it 12 weeks? If so what about 12 weeks and one day?

Is it anytime until birth? If so, why would it not be acceptable to "abort" a premature baby?

I'm not talking about legality,but where does your moral compass point?

When is a baby a baby in your opinion?

Plumbthedepths

Ironicname wrote:

I'm curious to find out from pro abortion people, when exactly is it ok to allow abortion?

Just look up the present legislation, that answers your question.

Faugheen

Ironicname wrote: »

I'm curious to find out from pro abortion people, when exactly is it ok to allow abortion?

Is it 12 weeks? If so what about 12 weeks and one day?

Is it anytime until birth? If so, why would it not be acceptable to "abort" a premature baby?

I'm not talking about legality,but where does your moral compass point?

When is a baby a baby in your opinion?

Yawn.

Been there, done that, took pictures, kept the receipts.

And piss off with the 'pro-abortion' nonsense. Just because I'm pro-choice does not mean I like abortions.

splinter65

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Knew exactly what I voted for , move on.

This “move on” business smacks of such desperation from the pro abortion people.
What specifically do you mean when you say “move on”?
You know you sound like a parent who has told a child that they can’t go to the circus and that there will be no more discussion about it?
Why do you think you can decide that a conversation is over?

splinter65

Ironicname wrote: »

I'm curious to find out from pro abortion people, when exactly is it ok to allow abortion?

Is it 12 weeks? If so what about 12 weeks and one day?

Is it anytime until birth? If so, why would it not be acceptable to "abort" a premature baby?

I'm not talking about legality,but where does your moral compass point?

When is a baby a baby in your opinion?

If you get an answer to that question would you mind alerting me? 30 years I’ve never had an answer. Thanks.

Ash.J.Williams

Sean.3516 wrote: »

To everyone that thinks I’m trying to provoke a mean spirited argument or re-litigate the entire referendum debate we had last year, I’M NOT.

What I noticed in that campaign was the debates seemed more focused on statistics of how many women were travelling to England and both sides impugning each other’s motives in cynical fashion and less focused on an actual honest debate from first principles on the most important question which is “Should the foetus/unborn human have the right to life?”

If the answer is yes, then there’s a case for limiting abortion only to threat to life cases, if the answer is no, then there ought to be as few restrictions as possible.


Most of the grandstanding talking points seemed to fly right over this question.

Even the No Campaign whom I have significant criticisms of (for putting out bad dubious info on cancer and infertility complications from abortions and for just being crap overly self-assured debaters) were hopeless at framing the debate.

So hopefully there’ll be an honest discussion that will lead to some enlightenment.


(For anyone saying “you guys lost the referendum, get over it” all I have to say is that the Pro-Choicers lost in 1983 by precisely the same proportion that the Pro-Lifer’s lost by in 2018, and they were not shut down, they kept campaigning for their cause as they had the right to do. The nature of a free republic is that an issue can and should be discussed openly as long as there are people who care about it and we ought not to shut down a debate based on an appeal to popularity.)

No

martingriff

n97 mini wrote: »

I've two kids. They weren't aware of their surroundings and had no sense of self preservation till long after they were born. My earliest memory is probably some time in my 3rd year.

You may not remember does not mean you were not aware. A smiling face looking up at you a cry if it is hungry or wet. I don't remember those things but they happened was I not sentient. My memory is crap so there is a lot i have not remembered

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

This “move on” business smacks of such desperation from the pro abortion people.
What specifically do you mean when you say “move on”?
You know you sound like a parent who has told a child that they can’t go to the circus and that there will be no more discussion about it?
Why do you think you can decide that a conversation is over?

Desperation? The only desperation I see is those that have lost control of women and don't like it.

Loafing Oaf

Deleted User wrote: »

Basically the vote was to remove any constitutional rights for a fetus inside the mother's womb up to the time of birth. That's why I voted no. If it had retained some rights I would have voted yes.

Sure you would:rolleyes:

uptherebels

Ironicname wrote: »

I'm curious to find out from pro abortion people, when exactly is it ok to allow abortion?

Is it 12 weeks? If so what about 12 weeks and one day?

Is it anytime until birth? If so, why would it not be acceptable to "abort" a premature baby?

I'm not talking about legality,but where does your moral compass point?

When is a baby a baby in your opinion?

What pro abortion people? I've yet to meet someone who is pro abortion
A premature baby has been born and has protections so why are you asking about "aborting" it.
Most people would say up to viability, before that it's up to the woman and her doctor.

splinter65

uptherebels wrote: »

Desperation? The only desperation I see is those that have lost control of women and don't like it.

“lost control of women” oh what a load of absolute bollox.
You all seem completely exasperated that the other 700000 didn’t just disappear. Tough.

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

This “move on†business smacks of such desperation from the pro abortion people. What specifically do you mean when you say “move on� You know you sound like a parent who has told a child that they can’t go to the circus and that there will be no more discussion about it? Why do you think you can decide that a conversation is over?

Desperation?are you stupid? You do know the result right?

Loafing Oaf

splinter65 wrote: »

You all seem completely exasperated that the other 700000 didn’t just disappear. Tough.

Well the 49.99% who voted no in the divorce referendum didn't 'disappear' the day after the referendum, but the overwhelming majority of them ceased to pursue that 'cause' in any active way. Same is happening with abortion, if not quite so definitively.

Ironicname

Plumbthedepths wrote:

Just look up the present legislation, that answers your question.

I'm not looking for a legislative answer.

Faugheen wrote:

And piss off with the 'pro-abortion' nonsense. Just because I'm pro-choice does not mean I like abortions.

Ok. Absolutely no need to be abusive. But you are pro choice, meaning you are "pro necessitating the ability to have an abortion". Just because you don't like the term and it is more palatable for you to phrase it differently, doesn't change what it is.

uptherebels wrote:

What pro abortion people? I've yet to meet someone who is pro abortion A premature baby has been born and has protections so why are you asking about "aborting" it. Most people would say up to viability, before that it's up to the woman and her doctor.

I know that's what most people would say. I'm asking what they think.

I'm asking a moral question, not a legal one. If someone who agrees with the possibility of late term abortions, surely the killing/termination of that foetus/clump of cells/baby is comparable to the killing/termination of a premature baby? Or is it the physical act of the cutting of the umbilical cord that qualifies the child as being alive?

I'm not asking for a legal definition, I specifically asked when, morally, people who would normally advocate for the right to abort (aka pro abortion *sorry if that makes you sad), decide that abortion shouldn't be allowed.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing other people's rationale.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

“lost control of women” oh what a load of absolute bollox.
You all seem completely exasperated that the other 700000 didn’t just disappear. Tough.

Exasperated? Nope try again. I don't care what the 700,000 do. We live in a democracy so their thoughts on the issue are now irrelevant to me.

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

“lost control of women” oh what a load of absolute bollox.
You all seem completely exasperated that the other 700000 didn’t just disappear. Tough.

So what is it you want? Another vote?

Ironicname

uptherebels wrote:

Exasperated? Nope try again. I don't care what the 700,000 do. We live in a democracy so their thoughts on the issue are now irrelevant to me.

That's an attitude that really sums up why dialogue around controversial or contentious subjects are rarely fruitful.

Other people's opinion, especially ones that are contrary to ones that you hold are useful and can be extremely relevant.

To completely dismiss people because more people think a different way is pretty much mob mentality.

True democracy would be letting people decide on legislation, but not completely abandoning dissenting voices and labeling them as irrelevant.

uptherebels

Ironicname wrote: »

I'm not looking for a legislative answer.



Ok. Absolutely no need to be abusive. But you are pro choice, meaning you are "pro necessitating the ability to have an abortion". Just because you don't like the term and it is more palatable for you to phrase it differently, doesn't change what it is.



I know that's what most people would say. I'm asking what they think.

I'm asking a moral question, not a legal one. If someone who agrees with the possibility of late term abortions, surely the killing/termination of that foetus/clump of cells/baby is comparable to the killing/termination of a premature baby? Or is it the physical act of the cutting of the umbilical cord that qualifies the child as being alive?

I'm not asking for a legal definition, I specifically asked when, morally, people who would normally advocate for the right to abort (aka pro abortion *sorry if that makes you sad), decide that abortion shouldn't be allowed.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing other people's rationale.

Why do you think what people say is different to what they think?
I haven't mentioned anything about legality. A premature baby is the same as an adult.