Should a foetus have the right to life?

Faugheen

Ironicname wrote: »

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

You needed to have this conversation and want to educate yourself over a year ago when we actually voted on this.

Ironicname

Faugheen wrote:

You needed to have this conversation and want to educate yourself over a year ago when we actually voted on this.

I did. But unlike you, I'm open to hearing other opinions after the fact.

Ironicname

Ironicname wrote: »

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

"Isn't it moronic, don't you think."

Your game is abundantly clear, you have no intention of entertaining views that conflict directly with yours. Only to dishonestly shift the goalposts at will to suit your narrative. Get real.

Hannibal_Smith

Ironicname wrote: »

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

No one is shooting it down. Explaining to you that it's a serious valid issue and not a loophole is not shooting down a discussion.

iamwhoiam

Ironicname wrote: »

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

Did you vote in the referendum ?

Ironicname

iamwhoiam wrote:

Did you vote in the referendum ?

I did. I voted yes.

Ironicname

Deleted User wrote:

Your game is abundantly clear, you have no intention of entertaining views that conflict directly with yours. Only to dishonestly shift the goalposts at will to suit your narrative. Get real.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

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

i must have misinterpreted this part of your post

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

OMM 0000

The obvious answer is yes.

The problem is a lot of women don't want to have the baby, so the question is should they be allowed kill it.

I don't know what the answer is. I feel it's probably "no", but I also think we should be allowed make our own decisions.

I think, probably, the best solution is to make it illegal, but don't put any women in prison for it, and don't ban clinics offering the service. This might sound hypocritical, but I think it's a compromise. It will prevent abortion becoming a form of contraception, like it's a a form of contraception in places like China. It'll still be seen as a serious thing.

iamwhoiam

Ironicname wrote: »

I did. I voted yes.

Then you must have read the legislation then and asked opinions so you could form your own .?

Ironicname

iamwhoiam wrote:

Then you must have read the legislation then and asked opinions so you could form your own .?

I was torn to be honest. It wasn't made abundantly clear what law would be out in place. I believe that it should have been repealed but I'm still unsure as to what terms I find it morally acceptable.

It is a complicated issue

iamwhoiam

Ironicname wrote: »

I was torn to be honest. It wasn't made abundantly clear what law would be out in place. I believe that it should have been repealed but I'm still unsure as to what terms I find it morally acceptable.

It is a complicated issue

Yes it is . Every individual case is different and I guess that is the dilemma . I too was conflicted but had to vote Yes for those women who needed me to vote Yes .
There are enough cases that need us at the time so I couldn’t let them down .

ohnonotgmail

Ironicname wrote: »

I was torn to be honest. It wasn't made abundantly clear what law would be out in place. I believe that it should have been repealed but I'm still unsure as to what terms I find it morally acceptable.

It is a complicated issue

It was made absolutely clear. the draft legislation was published prior to the referendum.

SusieBlue

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. 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?

Just wanted to point out that before the initial referendum in '83 there was no constitutional right to life for the unborn either.
There were no late term abortions, or euthanisation of viable babies like you're trying to suggest happened back then.

From the founding of the state until '83 the right to life didn't exist and it wasn't the apocolyptic Stalin-esque society you are making it out to be.

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

It was made absolutely clear. the draft legislation was published prior to the referendum.

You know what? I was wrong. It was indeed published. And it did clarify the proposed laws.

I think that with all the false information from both sides that was floating about, I may have confused myself.

That's on me though. So I will happily retract that it wasn't made abundantly clear.

Faugheen

Ironicname wrote: »

You know what? I was wrong. It was indeed published. And it did clarify the proposed laws.

I think that with all the false information from both sides that was floating about, I may have confused myself.

That's on me though. So I will happily retract that it wasn't made abundantly clear.

What false information was spread by the yes side?

Ironicname

Faugheen wrote:

What false information was spread by the yes side?

The usual malarkey from "feminists" saying that if you had any doubts about the morality of abortion you were anti-woman, pretty much shaming people into voting yes so as not to be a big aul meanie who wants women to die.

shesty

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Yes it is . Every individual case is different and I guess that is the dilemma . I too was conflicted but had to vote Yes for those women who needed me to vote Yes .
There are enough cases that need us at the time so I couldn’t let them down .

Yes.This was why my vote was Yes.I hate the idea of abortion, think it is so awful.But I am a mother, I have seen those tiny heartbeats on screens, have had the early bleeds, have worried so much over anomaly scans....I voted yes for the tiny wedge of people who find themselves in the absolutely sh%te position of being told their baby won't survive and who don't know how they will carry on.I voted to give those people a choice, because there but for the grace of god go I.(paradoxically).

I was fully aware that in doing so I opened to the door to abortions for people who got pregnant and didn't want the baby under other circumstances, but equally there is a small wedge in there of pregnancy through rape, for example, that I wanted to give a choice to.

Statistically I was voting for a tiny percentage of all pregnancies and my vote meant that others got included that maybe I would have preferred not to.But I suppose at the end of the day I will never have to make that choice to abort and I don't envy anyone who does have to.I just felt that at the end of the day, if a woman chooses to abort, they have to live with what they have done to their body and their baby, and no amount of grandstanding by either side is going to affect that extremely personal choice.

notobtuse

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

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?

The fact remains the law created a right to abort a child at ANY time, even past the point of viability, for "emotional" reasons. What that mean is it gives abortion doctors the power to override ANY abortion restriction merely by claiming that there are "emotional" reasons for the abortion.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

The fact remains the law created a right to abort a child at ANY time, even past the point of viability, for "emotional" reasons. What that mean is it gives abortion doctors the power to override ANY abortion restriction merely by claiming that there are "emotional" reasons for the abortion.

you say "emotional" reasons (i like the scare quotes btw. classy) the law says where is "a risk to the life, or of serious harm to the health, of the pregnant woman; or where there is a risk to the life, or of serious harm to the health, of the pregnant woman in an emergency;. Nice scaremongering though. Thankfully that didn't work during the referendum.

SusieBlue

notobtuse wrote: »

The fact remains the law created a right to abort a child at ANY time, even past the point of viability, for "emotional" reasons. What that mean is it gives abortion doctors the power to override ANY abortion restriction merely by claiming that there are "emotional" reasons for the abortion.

Absolute hyperbole and total lies but don't let minor details like that stop you in your quest to spread fake news.
Tactics like the above are exactly what lost you the referendum. The public saw through the emotional manipulation and sheer nonsense being spouted as fact.

nthclare

I think people are entitled to have a choice of what they want to do with their bodies etc their decision their responsibility.

Not mine or the public's responsibility, if I went out and got pregnant and it was due to lacking responsibility or not having the gumption to use the morning after pill,then I'd have to take it on the chin and bare maximum responsibility for my night of passion or whatever.

You'll have a lot of individuals who'll agree with me and a lot who won't.

But I think if I knew my mum was going to get rid of me I'd have a lot of thinking to do, I would be understanding.
But there would be a bit of resentment lingering through my thoughts...

Luckily I'm alive today and my mum didn't put her career or lifestyle before me.

I know a few women who made that trip and not one of them said they didn't think of how the kid would have turned out.

I know another lady who fot the whole month of October every year she's like a briar because she can't forgive herself.

Unfortunately she had one if those bell end boyfriend s who told her he'd support her if she got rid of it...

Did he f)UK he did a runner when they got off the boat and she's still struggling every now and again 17 year's later.

It's a touching subject....

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you say "emotional" reasons (i like the scare quotes btw. classy) the law says where is "a risk to the life, or of serious harm to the health, of the pregnant woman; or where there is a risk to the life, or of serious harm to the health, of the pregnant woman in an emergency;. Nice scaremongering though. Thankfully that didn't work during the referendum.

My comments were directed towards 7 states in the US. Why put in emotional reasons as justification for late term abortions if not merely a way to circumvent the law and essentially make it available at any time for any reason?

And to answer the OP question... Life starts at conception according to science (embryology) as a human embryo represents a developing homo sapiens.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

My comments were directed towards 7 states in the US. Why put in emotional reasons as justification for late term abortions if not merely a way to circumvent the law and essentially make it available at any time for any reason?

And to answer the OP question... Life starts at conception according to science (embryology) as a human embryo represents a developing homo sapiens.

Yeah we had that discussion before. you lost it then as well.

notobtuse

nthclare wrote: »

I think people are entitled to have a choice of what they want to do with their bodies etc their decision their responsibility.

Not mine or the public's responsibility, if I went out and got pregnant and it was due to lacking responsibility or not having the gumption to use the morning after pill,then I'd have to take it on the chin and bare maximum responsibility for my night of passion or whatever.

You'll have a lot of individuals who'll agree with me and a lot who won't.

But I think if I knew my mum was going to get rid of me I'd have a lot of thinking to do, I would be understanding.
But there would be a bit of resentment lingering through my thoughts...

Luckily I'm alive today and my mum didn't put her career or lifestyle before me.

I know a few women who made that trip and not one of them said they didn't think of how the kid would have turned out.

I know another lady who fot the whole month of October every year she's like a briar because she can't forgive herself.

Unfortunately she had one if those bell end boyfriend s who told her he'd support her if she got rid of it...

Did he f)UK he did a runner when they got off the boat and she's still struggling every now and again 17 year's later.

It's a touching subject....

It’s absolutely a touching subject for most. Abortion, which comes from the dehumanization of the unborn, serves as a legal coping mechanism because it is difficult for many to justify the killing of their unborn babies. It results in the termination of all future choices that unborn human might have taken… the thing all of us, who have survived, cherish most.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Yeah we had that discussion before. you lost it then as well.

No... The unborn lost with their lives.

Hannibal_Smith

notobtuse wrote: »

The fact remains the law created a right to abort a child at ANY time, even past the point of viability, for "emotional" reasons. What that mean is it gives abortion doctors the power to override ANY abortion restriction merely by claiming that there are "emotional" reasons for the abortion.

No. The law confirmed abortion, which was already allowed. It set out that an abortion can be carried out by an appropriate professional up to 24 weeks, or when the health of the patient is at risk. The health risk has to be certified by a medical professional.

You said you quoted law but you didn't. You're trying to cement it to your agenda with make-believe. Abortion is not available for any reason, you lied. The circumstances are set out in the law.

Faugheen

Ironicname wrote: »

The usual malarkey from "feminists" saying that if you had any doubts about the morality of abortion you were anti-woman, pretty much shaming people into voting yes so as not to be a big aul meanie who wants women to die.

How is that false information?

If you voted no then you voted against women having a choice for themselves. That's a fact.

Ironicname

Faugheen wrote:

How is that false information?

It's quite simple, telling people that if they vote no, they hate women is a lie.

Telling people that if they were in any way uncomfortable with legalising abortion meant they were terrible people was a lie.

That's how it was false.

Faugheen wrote:

If you voted no then you voted against women having a choice for themselves. That's a fact.

It's not. There may have been a plethora of reasons for people to vote no. The fact that you are refuse to accept that makes you extremely intolerant.

I assume you you are a feminist? (3rd/4th/,modern wave/whatever they call it)

Hannibal_Smith

Ironicname wrote: »

It's quite simple, telling people that if they vote no, they hate women is a lie.

Telling people that if they were in any way uncomfortable with legalising abortion meant they were terrible people was a lie.

That's how it was false.



It's not. There may have been a plethora of reasons for people to vote no. The fact that you are refuse to accept that makes you extremely intolerant.

I assume you you are a feminist? (3rd/4th/,modern wave/whatever they call it)

Is that not an opinion? Rather than fact? I wouldn't call expressing an opinion supplying information?