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
12357…20

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ironicname wrote: »
    Cool.

    It's telling that more people are willing to berate me for using wrong terminology than actually answer any questions.

    I'm not forcing anyone to respond. I just hoped people would so I could get different perspectives.



    do you or the other pro-dead-mother advocates feel berated if i point out that you havent actually read any of the responses that give you exactly the info you have requested?

    thats a strange blind spot for everyone on the pro-dead-mother side to take.

    dont you think thats strange?

    not berating you, only asking


  • Options
    #123
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    FFS - leave Trump out of this.

    And stop with the “pro-abortion” / “pro-dead mothers” categorisations. Deliberately trying to get a rise from other posters is not acceptable.

    dudara


  • Options
    #124
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    Deleted User wrote:
    do you or the other pro-dead-mother advocates feel berated if i point out that you havent actually read any of the responses that give you exactly the info you have requested?

    Deleted User wrote:
    thats a strange blind spot for everyone on the pro-dead-mother side to take.

    Deleted User wrote:
    dont you think thats strange?

    Deleted User wrote:
    not berating you, only asking

    I'm sorry, I may have missed your answer.

    When, in your opinion, does it go from ok to have an abortion to unacceptable?

    I have been admonished for my use of the word pro abortion (I was genuinely unaware that it was offensive) so I will use pro choice.

    When does pro choice, again, not legally, but moreso in your own personal opinion, become no choice?

    I'm not being intentionally confrontational. I just want to get a grasp of where the "cut off point" is for the majority of people who would class themselves as pro choice.


  • Options
    #125
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Ironicname wrote: »
    I have been admonished for my use of the word pro abortion (I was genuinely unaware that it was offensive) so I will use pro choice.

    Bullsh*t. I tried to tell you why it was a stupid term and you went to justify your reasons for using it.


  • Options
    #126
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ironicname wrote: »
    I'm sorry, I may have missed your answer.

    When, in your opinion, does it go from ok to have an abortion to unacceptable?

    I have been admonished for my use of the word pro abortion (I was genuinely unaware that it was offensive) so I will use pro choice.

    When does pro choice, again, not legally, but moreso in your own personal opinion, become no choice?

    I'm not being intentionally confrontational. I just want to get a grasp of where the "cut off point" is for the majority of people who would class themselves as pro choice.

    who said it ever became 'unacceptable'?

    re your not knowing the term "pro abortion" was a goad, frankly i dont believe you.

    i dont understand what 'no choice' means in terms of a relative term to 'pro choice'.

    the 'cut off point', if this refers to the latest stage for abortion, is in my opinion a matter for each individual circumstance.

    what other answer could one give and not be overly simplistic?

    what other answer could one seek and not be overly naif?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    this question was answered.

    but i think in conjunction with the result, the media should stop reporting that a female victim in a car crash or terrorist attack was x months pregnant.


  • Options
    #128
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Ironicname wrote: »

    Pro abortion is also pro choice. It's like being offended that I called something an arse cheek instead of a buttock.

    Im not going to worry about using a term you don't like.

    To be pro- something indicates that you are in favour of it.

    You can be in favour of allowing a women the ability to choose to have an abortion, but not be in favour of abortion yourself i.e. you yourself wouldn't have one, but accept that another women should be able to if they so choose.


  • Options
    #129
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    Faugheen wrote:
    Bullsh*t. I tried to tell you why it was a stupid term and you went to justify your reasons for using it.
    because I felt it was accurate. The mod has asked us to stop debating it so I will. I now use your preferred term.

    Guadalupe Calm Acorn wrote:
    You can be in favour of allowing a women the ability to choose to have an abortion, but not be in favour of abortion yourself i.e. you yourself wouldn't have one, but accept that another women should be able to if they so choose.

    I get that. But you still approve of it. Again, see above.
    Deleted User wrote:
    re your not knowing the term "pro abortion" was a goad, frankly i dont believe you.

    Which is your right.
    Deleted User wrote:
    who said it ever became 'unacceptable'?

    That's what I am asking.

    In your opinion, does it ever become morally acceptable (timeframe wise) for a woman to terminate a pregnancy?


  • Options
    #130
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Ironicname wrote: »

    I get that. But you still approve of it. Again, see above.

    But you don't approve, that's the point.

    It's a bit like freedom of speech. I might not like what you say, and I may never say it, but I believe you should be given the choice to say it or not. It's the same principle.


  • Options
    #131
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    Guadalupe Calm Acorn wrote:
    It's a bit like freedom of speech. I might not like what you say, and I may never say it, but I believe you should be given the choice to say it or not. It's the same principle.

    I kinda get what you are saying Dan but there is a huge difference between advocating for the right to express an opinion and the right to carry out an action.

    Hugely different


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Ironicname wrote: »
    I kinda get what you are saying Dan but there is a huge difference between advocating for the right to express an opinion and the right to carry out an action.

    Hugely different

    Well what do you want? The principle is the same. You think they should be able to do something you yourself wouldn't do. Hence pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.

    Lets try gay-sex. There are people out their who don't approve of the "gay-lifestyle", but neither do they want to ban gay-sex. They let gay people have gay sex and they themselves don't do it.

    The people may be described as pro-choice but not pro-lgbt.


  • Options
    #133
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    Guadalupe Calm Acorn wrote:
    Well what do you want? The principle is the same. You think they should be able to do something you yourself wouldn't do. Hence pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.

    Guadalupe Calm Acorn wrote:
    Lets try gay-sex. There are people out their who don't approve of the "gay-lifestyle", but neither do they want to ban gay-sex. They let gay people have gay sex and they themselves don't do it.

    I think it's not comparable in that way chief. Anyway, regardless of my haphazard use of a wrong term, would anyone who is not anti abortion care to tell me when, specifically, they would oppose to a termination taking place.


  • Options
    #134
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Ironicname wrote: »
    I think it's not comparable in that way chief. Anyway, regardless of my haphazard use of a wrong term, would anyone who is not anti abortion care to tell me when, specifically, they would oppose to a termination taking place.
    Nine US states now allow the killing of babies up to birth. Illinois, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont, along with Washington, DC. And right before birth it IS a baby, not a fetus or sac of cells. Nice places to visit but you wouldn’t want to try and live there if you’re an unborn baby? The beginning of the death of a nation!

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #135
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Ironicname wrote: »
    I think it's not comparable in that way chief. Anyway, regardless of my haphazard use of a wrong term, would anyone who is not anti abortion care to tell me when, specifically, they would oppose to a termination taking place.

    The principle is the exact same and you know it. You say it's not comparable but don't explain why, because you can't, because it is comparable.


  • Options
    #136
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Nine US states now allow the killing of babies up to birth. Illinois, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont, along with Washington, DC. And right before birth it IS a baby, not a fetus or sac of cells. Nice places to visit but you wouldn’t want to try and live there if you’re an unborn baby? The beginning of the death of a nation!

    Without restriction?


  • Options
    #137
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,139 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Nine US states now allow the killing of babies up to birth. Illinois, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont, along with Washington, DC. And right before birth it IS a baby, not a fetus or sac of cells. Nice places to visit but you wouldn’t want to try and live there if you’re an unborn baby? The beginning of the death of a nation!

    Are these babies with fatal foetal abnormalities


  • Options
    #138
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Ironicname wrote:
    Not at all. People's opinions are very important.


    Nope, people were asked to vote either to retain or remove the 8th. They overwhelmingly voted to remove it by a 2:1 majority. Opinion is irrelevant, as I said move on.


  • Options
    #139
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    Guadalupe Calm Acorn wrote:
    The principle is the exact same and you know it. You say it's not comparable but don't explain why, because you can't, because it is comparable.

    Sure.

    I'll try to explain but I think you might have your mind firmly entrenched.

    Comparing opposition to a sex act carried out between consensual adults and opposition to the termination of a living embryo/cells/child is trite.

    If you are trying to say that you can support something being legal while not supporting it morally then I disagree. If you were morally against homosexuality, I doubt you would vote for it

    Your comparison was full of variables. Why did the person disagree with gay lifestyle? What exactly was it about it that they hated? Why would they vote to accept it if they hated it?

    Abortion is less nuanced insofar as "are you ok with it" and if so, up until what point?


  • Options
    #140
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,427 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Why could we not have put this in the constitution like other human rights?

    Because it’s too uncertain and it would be challenged in court to define the exact moment at which a ‘person’ can be said to exist. So rather than leaving it up to legislators, the abortion debate would be decided by judges in the Supreme Court with all the potential for personal baggage to get in the way of impartial legal and philosophical opinion


  • Options
    #141
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Are these babies with fatal foetal abnormalities

    https://prochoicecolorado.org/laws-policy/in-our-state/

    Colorado is one of the few states where a late abortion can be obtained. Outpatient abortion is available up to 26 weeks. In addition, medically indicated termination of pregnancy up to 34 weeks is also an option for conditions such as fetal anomalies, genetic disorder, fetal demise and/or or severe medical problems


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Are these babies with fatal foetal abnormalities
    No. I understand the NY bill allows abortion up to birth, for any reason. Are they all written that way? Perhaps. And yes, abortion proponents say late term abortions are only for the abnormalities you noted, but WHY then are the laws not written that way? Doe v. Bolton declares late-term abortion must be legal for reasons of “mental” or “emotional” health. It wasn’t very long ago when democrats said abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Oh, how far they’ve come.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #143
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,427 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Biologically, it is clear that a fetus is life. If the fetus continues to grow, it must be alive. From the moment of conception the embryo grows through cellular reproduction. Human beings reproduce to continue their species. The fetus is not part of any one human, it is a complete and independent human organism... different than the mother and father.
    so ban the morning after pill then

    And go back to good old days where every sperm was sacred


  • Options
    #144
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Ironicname wrote: »
    Sure.

    I'll try to explain but I think you might have your mind firmly entrenched.

    Comparing opposition to a sex act carried out between consensual adults and opposition to the termination of a living embryo/cells/child is trite.

    It may be trite, but it's still a valid comparison.
    Ironicname wrote: »
    If you are trying to say that you can support something being legal while not supporting it morally then I disagree. If you were morally against homosexuality, I doubt you would vote for it

    Ofcourse you can. I'm not morally in favour of drug use, but I'd vote to legalise at least some drugs, as I believe it'd be better to take at least some of the profits made from drugs away from criminal gangs and with the likes of weed I you should be able to smoke it if you want, even if I wouldn't.
    Ironicname wrote: »

    Your comparison was full of variables. Why did the person disagree with gay lifestyle? What exactly was it about it that they hated? Why would they vote to accept it if they hated it?

    They believe gay sex is against their religion, but are aware not everyone has the same beliefs as them so they take a pro-choice viewpoint. They believe that people should be able to have gay sex even if they won't and disagree with it. Thus they are pro-choice, but not pro-lgbt in that they disagree with the "lifestyle" but believe others should be free to live it if they wish.
    Ironicname wrote: »
    Abortion is less nuanced insofar as "are you ok with it" and if so, up until what point?

    I believe during the referendum there was a thread on abortion were people (presumably women) stated that they are ok with women having abortions, but that wouldn't have one themselves, or, put another way, they are pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.


  • Options
    #145
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Akrasia wrote: »
    so ban the morning after pill then

    And go back to good old days where every sperm was sacred

    It is said the greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest members. Who are more vulnerable than unborn babies?

    I’m a hypocrite and might just burn in hell for it... well, maybe just purgatory for a spell. I agree with abortion for rape or incest, if there were severe abnormalities of the child, the mother’s life was in danger, and I’m torn on the up to 6 weeks ('heartbeat' legislation) debate.

    But I give high praise for those who value every unborn life... and it is life.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #146
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    notobtuse wrote: »
    It is said the greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest members. Who are more vulnerable than unborn babies?

    The mothers who carry them.


  • Options
    #147
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Interesting to see pro life posters being economical with the truth as usual, for example Colorado and New York.
    Same tactic back fired here with the vote regarding the 8th.


  • Options
    #148
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    The mothers who carry them.
    I highly doubt that.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #149
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    Interesting to see pro life posters being economical with the truth as usual, for example Colorado and New York.
    Same tactic back fired here with the vote regarding the 8th.
    What part of the NY law I noted was 'economical with the truth?'

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #150
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    What has American abortion law got to do with Ireland? Answers on a postcard please .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No. I understand the NY bill allows abortion up to birth, for any reason. Are they all written that way? Perhaps. And yes, abortion proponents say late term abortions are only for the abnormalities you noted, but WHY then are the laws not written that way? Doe v. Bolton declares late-term abortion must be legal for reasons of “mental” or “emotional” health. It wasn’t very long ago when democrats said abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Oh, how far they’ve come.
    notobtuse wrote: »
    What part of the NY law I noted was 'economical with the truth?'

    Where in the RHA does it say that it allows abortion for any reason up to birth?


Advertisement