Should a foetus have the right to life?

notobtuse

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

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

According to Factcheck.org

The RHA permits abortions when — according to a medical professional’s “reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case” — “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”



Women may choose to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks; pregnancies typically range from 38 to 42 weeks. After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.”



Roe v. Wade held that states may limit abortions after fetal viability, except in cases “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother” (New York’s old law, which predated the decision, only allowed for late-term exceptions to protect the mother’s life.) Fetal viability was defined as being the point when a fetus was “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”



New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

Emotional and psychological covers just about everything.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

According to Factcheck.org



Emotional and psychological covers just about everything.

So it doesn't say what you claimed. Same stuff tried before the 8th, cost ye a lot of votes.

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/2019/liz-krueger/faqs-about-reproductive-health-act

Hannibal_Smith

notobtuse wrote: »

According to Factcheck.org



Emotional and psychological covers just about everything.

The RHA doesn't say it allows abortion up until birth, for any reason. That is blatantly untrue. It says a medical practitioner can carry out:-

an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.

Ironicname

Plumbthedepths wrote:

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.

No.

Guadalupe Calm Acorn wrote:

It may be trite, but it's still a valid comparison.

Guadalupe Calm Acorn wrote:

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.

I see where you are coming from and that is a valid argument.

I think where the divergence happens here is the belief that we aren't talking about personal responsibility, but the responsibility of protecting what some people view as life.

In your opinion, when does a foetus become an entity that deserves protection?

I'm not asking what the law is, I'm asking you to ask yourself. Should it be ok once it is inside a woman? If not, when do you think it is ok to stop a heart beating? Or do you disagree that it should happen at all? Or should it be up to the mother and her morals?

If somebody kicked an 8 month pregnant woman in the stomach, causing a miscarriage/death of the child, should that person be charged with murder/manslaughter?

I'm just saying that life/abortion is not as simple as the "choice Vs life" brigade would have you believe.

Igotadose

Ironicname wrote: »

No.


In your opinion, when does a foetus become an entity that deserves protection?

So, the thread's changed to what's been covered at length in the other abortion thread here. Feel free to join in, really don't need two threads on the same topic:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057961470

notobtuse

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The RHA doesn't say it allows abortion up until birth, for any reason. That is blatantly untrue. It says a medical practitioner can carry out:-

an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.

Spin it any way you want but a woman only needs to find a doctor who would recommend an abortion any time for the woman’s emotional ‘health.’ And they do exist far more than people might admit. Look at the case of Kermit Gosnell. Years ago I had a neighbor who lived across the street from me who was an abortion doctor. He would sign anything for money. If one couldn’t get an abortion for pretty much any reason the emotional and psychological matters wouldn’t have been put into the NY law.

Ironicname

Igotadose wrote:

So, the thread's changed to what's been covered at length in the other abortion thread here. Feel free to join in, really don't need two threads on the same topic:

The thread title is "should a foetus have a right to life".

I asked, and haven't been directly answered, as to when protection should be given to an embryo/foetus/insert acceptable term.

How has that changed the topic?

I've already stated that I have no bias but was interested in hearing people's opinions but have been met with nothing but hostility from people who claimed I was using wrong terms (for which I have acknowledged and have not repeated) and being told that "people like me" have an agenda to push.

I am literally looking for people's opinions yet for some reason being made out to be intolerant.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Ironicname wrote: »

I see where you are coming from and that is a valid argument.

I think where the divergence happens here is the belief that we aren't talking about personal responsibility, but the responsibility of protecting what some people view as life.

What we were discussing was the idea that pro-choice = pro-abortion. I'm saying it doesn't, and believe I've done a good job as to why. Whether or not we're talking about personal responsibility or not doesn't really matter. We're arguing about terminology, hence my examples.

Ironicname wrote: »

In your opinion, when does a foetus become an entity that deserves protection?

I'm not asking what the law is, I'm asking you to ask yourself. Should it be ok once it is inside a woman? If not, when do you think it is ok to stop a heart beating? Or do you disagree that it should happen at all? Or should it be up to the mother and her morals?

Up to 21 weeks. Though I quite happy with the 12 weeks that Ireland has.

Ironicname wrote: »

If somebody kicked an 8 month pregnant woman in the stomach, causing a miscarriage/death of the child, should that person be charged with murder/manslaughter?

I'm just saying that life/abortion is not as simple as the "choice Vs life" brigade would have you believe.

If it is proven that the kick caused the death/miscarriage then yes they should.

If it is found that that 8 month old baby is going to cause the mother to die then the mother should be able to get an abortion.

The pro-life/choice brigade don't have me believing anything. I come to my own conclusions through a variety of sources, as one should.

notobtuse

Ironicname wrote: »

No.






I see where you are coming from and that is a valid argument.

I think where the divergence happens here is the belief that we aren't talking about personal responsibility, but the responsibility of protecting what some people view as life.

In your opinion, when does a foetus become an entity that deserves protection?

I'm not asking what the law is, I'm asking you to ask yourself. Should it be ok once it is inside a woman? If not, when do you think it is ok to stop a heart beating? Or do you disagree that it should happen at all? Or should it be up to the mother and her morals?

If somebody kicked an 8 month pregnant woman in the stomach, causing a miscarriage/death of the child, should that person be charged with murder/manslaughter?

I'm just saying that life/abortion is not as simple as the "choice Vs life" brigade would have you believe.

You can state that question another way... If someone kicked an 8 month pregnant woman in the stomach that resulted in a miscarriage/death of the child, should they only receive a $100 fine for a misdemeanor ?

Hannibal_Smith

notobtuse wrote: »

Spin it any way you want but a woman only needs to find a doctor who would recommend an abortion any time for the woman’s emotional ‘health.’ And they do exist far more than people might admit. Look at the case of Kermit Gosnell. Years ago I had a neighbor who lived across the street from me who was an abortion doctor. He would sign anything for money. If one couldn’t get an abortion for pretty much any reason the emotional and psychological matters wouldn’t have been put into the NY law.

I am not spinning anything. I quoted the law to you.

It doesn't say you can get an abortion for any reason, as you claimed. It says to protect the patient's life or health. Before that in NY doctors had to wait until the conditions worsened or became life threatening before they could act.

Is that what you want?

Ironicname

Guadalupe Calm Acorn wrote:

The pro-life/choice brigade don't have me believing anything. I come to my own conclusions through a variety of sources, as one should.

Cheers Dan. I have to say that although I may not totally agree with everything you say, you have put forward some thought provoking arguments that I will consider.

Thanks again Dan.

Ironicname

Hannibal_Smith wrote:

It doesn't say you can get an abortion for any reason, as you claimed. It says to protect the patient's life or health. Before that in NY doctors had to wait until the conditions worsened or became life threatening before they could act.

This is where I personally think legislation for "the health of the mother" becomes shady.

I'm of the opinion that if course the health of the mother should be paramount, but that does leave it open to manipulation and abuse. Mental illness is not easily quantified and anyone who wishes to claim suicidal tendencies can do so in order to get an abortion if that caveat was available.

Should the rights of those who genuinely are suicidal be taken away to prevent abuse of the loophole?

I'm unsure.

It's a terrible scenario and an awfully hard situation to legislate.

Hannibal_Smith

Ironicname wrote: »

This is where I personally think legislation for "the health of the mother" becomes shady.

I'm of the opinion that if course the health of the mother should be paramount, but that does leave it open to manipulation and abuse. Mental illness is not easily quantified and anyone who wishes to claim suicidal tendencies can do so in order to get an abortion if that caveat was available.

Should the rights of those who genuinely are suicidal be taken away to prevent abuse of the loophole?

I'm unsure.

It's a terrible scenario and an awfully hard situation to legislate.

That's why the term is a medical one and not a legal one. You cannot legislate for every condition in pregnancy.

If its a choice between, the likelihood of someone abusing the system vs removing rights of a genuine case as you put it, I'm not a fan of the second one.

Plumbthedepths

The whinging about women having control over their own bodies continues.......

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

This is where I personally think legislation for "the health of the mother" becomes shady.

I'm of the opinion that if course the health of the mother should be paramount, but that does leave it open to manipulation and abuse. Mental illness is not easily quantified and anyone who wishes to claim suicidal tendencies can do so in order to get an abortion if that caveat was available.

Should the rights of those who genuinely are suicidal be taken away to prevent abuse of the loophole?

I'm unsure.

It's a terrible scenario and an awfully hard situation to legislate.

absolutely not. to even consider it is beyond the pale. you are suggesting punishing one group of women because some women MAY bend the rules.

Ironicname

Plumbthedepths wrote:

The whinging about women having control over their own bodies continues.......

Not true in any way. It's a discussion. It's about the rights of a child. Not women.

ohnonotgmail wrote:

absolutely not. to even consider it is beyond the pale. you are suggesting punishing one group of women because some women MAY bend the rules.

I disagree. Consideration is not only suitable, it's integral.

It's a loophole that can't exist otherwise it will be exploited.

I've not suggested punishing anyone. But anyhoo. That's not the question on hand. Feel free to open a new topic.

Has anyone apart from Dan decided they would like to give their opinion on when children are afforded the right to life?

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

Not true in any way. It's a discussion. It's about the rights of a child. Not women.



I disagree. Consideration is not only suitable, it's integral.

It's a loophole that can't exist otherwise it will be exploited.

I've not suggested punishing anyone. But anyhoo. That's not the question on hand. Feel free to open a new topic.

Has anyone apart from Dan decided they would like to give their opinion on when children are afforded the right to life?

but you have decided to punish them. you have decided they cannot have an abortion if their life is in danger because a tiny minority MIGHT exploit a loophole. You have decided it is acceptable to put their life and health at risk.

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

but you have decided to punish them. you have decided they cannot have an abortion if their life is in danger because a tiny minority MIGHT exploit a loophole. You have decided it is acceptable to put their life and health at risk.

I decided nothing. It is my opinion that merely claiming mental health issues does not mean you have mental health issues.

dudara

Ironicname wrote: »

Not true in any way. It's a discussion. It's about the rights of a child. Not women.

But the two questions cannot be taken in isolation of each other. The mother and the baby are intertwined. A debate about the right to life of the unborn has to take into account the rights of the mother. You cannot have one without the other.

Plumbthedepths

Ironicname wrote:

Not true in any way. It's a discussion. It's about the rights of a child. Not women.

It is true, the fact you are even revisiting what was voted upon shows you have no interest in respecting the democratic decision and the right of a woman to choose.
Any claim to the contrary on your behalf is bs.

Ironicname

dudara wrote:

But the two questions cannot be taken in isolation of each other. The mother and the baby are intertwined. A debate about the right to life of the unborn has to take into account the rights of the mother. You cannot have one without the other.

What's your opinion dudara?

When does a child become a child?

At what stage (if any) should a woman be prevented from having a termination?

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

I decided nothing. It is my opinion that merely claiming mental health issues does not mean you have mental health issues.

but it is your opinion, unless i am mistaken, that you think the loophole should be closed and the collateral damage to women who are at risk is acceptable. if i am wrong please tell me.

dudara

Ironicname wrote: »

What's your opinion dudara?

When does a child become a child?

At what stage (if any) should a woman be prevented from having a termination?

I am personally satisfied with the current legislation. In my mind, it strikes a good balance.

tssalo

Yes I believe the foetus has a right to life as soon as it's ♥ stars beating
An animal will soon have more rights than an unborn baby. 😔 Such a predictable society.

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.)

kikilarue2

Somewhere between 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 early pregnancies end in miscarriage (a woman’s body cannot support the pregnancy for one reason or another.

Abortion is the same thing but the decision is made by the woman’s mind instead of her body.

There is no such thing as a foetal right to life, or women could be prosecuted for having miscarriages as they are in some real backward countries.

The foetus is a fertilized egg; nothing more.

People who want to argue that it should be equated with a baby generally don’t do a good job of explaining why.

An acorn is not an oak tree.

A caterpillar is not a butterfly.

A foetus is not a baby.

Naturally, at the point where the foetus can survive outside the womb, it becomes unethical to abort it except in the most rare of circumstances.

Hannibal_Smith

Ironicname wrote: »

Not true in any way. It's a discussion. It's about the rights of a child. Not women.



I disagree. Consideration is not only suitable, it's integral.

It's a loophole that can't exist otherwise it will be exploited.

I've not suggested punishing anyone. But anyhoo. That's not the question on hand. Feel free to open a new topic.

Has anyone apart from Dan decided they would like to give their opinion on when children are afforded the right to life?

Mental health is a serious issue and is part of the health of the patient. It is not a loophole.

Children are afforded the right to life every day? If you mean the unborn, should they be afforded a right? Won't it come with a caveat that the health of the woman isn't at risk and that she wants to continue with the pregnancy?

Hannibal_Smith

Ironicname wrote: »

I decided nothing. It is my opinion that merely claiming mental health issues does not mean you have mental health issues.

And claiming you have mental health issues isn't sufficient. It has to be medically diagnosed.

Ironicname

dudara wrote:

But the two questions cannot be taken in isolation of each other. The mother and the baby are intertwined. A debate about the right to life of the unborn has to take into account the rights of the mother. You cannot have one without the other.

I agree. It's complicated.

kikilarue2 wrote:

Naturally, at the point where the foetus can survive outside the womb, it becomes unethical to abort it except in the most rare of circumstances.

So as medical technology advances and creates the scenario that a foetus can survive at an earlier stage, should abortion law reflect that?

Hannibal_Smith wrote:

Mental health is a serious issue and is part of the health of the patient. It is not a loophole.

Absolutely. And that's why discussion regarding the issue should be encouraged rather than shot down

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

but it is your opinion, unless i am mistaken, that you think the loophole should be closed and the collateral damage to women who are at risk is acceptable. if i am wrong please tell me.

You are wrong. I'd like to know more about it and hear the opinions of others as well as reading legislation.