Should a foetus have the right to life?

Faugheen

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Oh for God's sake.

If you think the baby has a right to live, it's because you don't trust women or want to control women?

Can you please make an effort to think through what you're saying.

Repeating the "it's because men hate women!" line is so incredibly lazy and obviously nonsense.

You don't give a flying f*ck about babies when they're born or what conditions they are born into so don't pretend to give a sh*t about the unborn.

ashes2014

"Should a foetus have a right to life?"

That question should only be answered by the person carrying the foetus.

It is the womans right to do whats best for her.

Ironicname

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Exactly - the same poster spouting off about "misinformation" from others has had to make several retractractions already...

That's a little unfair. I assume you are talking about me.

I had opinions about certain points and when presented with alternative opinions I acknowledged I may have been wrong

Somehow, you are framing that someone who changes their mind is an idiot. I would argue that they are open minded

Ironicname

pinkyeye wrote:

People went into a voting booth which is secret and voted FOR abortion so it's nothing like the Trump situation at all.

If you asked me the question without the patronising roll eyes I may have engaged with you

Ironicname

Deleted User wrote:

not babies not murder

That's not true. It's just a different perspective.

Deleted User wrote:

not worth discussing with anyone who insists otherwise

Don't then.

Ironicname

ashes2014 wrote:

That question should only be answered by the person carrying the foetus.

That's your opinion.

ashes2014 wrote:

It is the womans right to do whats best for her.

Absolutely.

https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/status/1158381957648138240?s=19

always wise to read this back every now and again.

if a person in an argument appears too dense tp be true, consider the position of contempt thus demonstrated.

take the win, theyre rare enough over entrenched powers.

move on to the next one.

Hotblack Desiato

Ironicname wrote: »

That's a little unfair. I assume you are talking about me.

I had opinions about certain points and when presented with alternative opinions I acknowledged I may have been wrong

Somehow, you are framing that someone who changes their mind is an idiot. I would argue that they are open minded

Actually I would maintain that they are severely misinformed.

Hotblack Desiato

Ironicname wrote: »

That's not true. It's just a different perspective.

Tell me about your perspective.

Have you or your partner ever had a miscarriage in an Irish "Catholic Ethos" maternity hospital?

If so, did they ever give you the slightest sense that the "product of conception" was in fact a human being?

StudentDad

I remember the nuns and others going berserk because cans of Virgin Cola were being sold with condoms. I was in my teens then and my overriding feeling at the time towards those who would restrict the sale of such items, was for such groups to bloody well mind their own business. What people choose in terms of reproduction or sexual practices, really isn't the concern of the State or certain pressure groups. In relation to a foetus and rights etc., I keep getting back to the same position. If a woman is free to engage in sexual activity and use devices etc to prevent pregnancy. She is also entitled to end a pregnancy that she does not desire. (Within the set legal boundaries). Once the foetus remains after those boundaries have been met. Then the foetus acquires legal rights. Not before.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hi OP, not sure if you are still around but I was asked in private by a few users to comment here so I hoisted myself out of my recent work related hiatus from boards.ie to throw in a few comments.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

That is precisely why I’m saying we should first seek to determine if the foetus has a right to life.

That was quite simply my ENTIRE approach to the debate throughout the entire period running up to the referendum. And the approach of a few other users too. So I think I can understand why a few users are getting antsy with you for digging up old ground as if you are discovering it new.

But no, no one at the time was able to show me a single reason why the fetus should be afforded such a right to life.

Attempts were at best comical from one person inventing a "right to get that right" that kicks in from conception pretty much..... which he then ran away from defending..... to another user who got very obsessed with the idea that a fetus can move it's tongue and seemed to think we should all find that relevant.

And when I did not find it relevant his knockdown come back argument was to point out that when I made the same argument 10 years ago, I used SLIGHTLY different wording than I do today. Well that was me schooled I guess *titter*

splinter65 wrote: »

What specifically do you mean when you say “move on”?

An odd question given the answer was literally contained in the text you quoted.

The user was being asked to "move on" from the "You did not know what you were actually voting for" rhetoric.

Which, it at least seems, is different from what you want to pretend they were being asked to "move on" from.

splinter65 wrote: »

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

Not at all true from you here. You were given many answers to it, including by me multiple times on multiple threads across multiple forums. You neither liked nor rebutted those answers... but that absolutely does not mean you were not given them.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

I am not sure why you feel any of that is relevant however. I could say pretty much that EXACT paragraph word for word about cows and almost the same word for word about insects. The reproductive life cycle of an organism appears to me not to be at all relevant to the discussion of rights and ethics.

notobtuse wrote: »

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!

Hardly. Canada have similarly liberal abortion laws too. Guess what though? It makes little to no difference if you look at the statistics on WHEN women choose to have abortions

In countries where abortion is entirely illegal.... legal up to a cut off point..... or legal with no theoretical cut off point like in the Locations you mention...... the statistics do not change.

That is to say, over 92% of choice based abortions appear to happen in or before week 12 REGARDLESS of how liberal or constrained the abortion laws are. So your doom saying simply does not map from navel to reality.

notobtuse wrote: »

Abortion, which comes from the dehumanization of the unborn

That line, almost verbatim, was tried and failed many times during the referendum debates. It is no more true now than it was then. Which is to say, not at all true.

The issue here is not that we are dehumanizing it at all. The issue is we are resisting the attempts of people like yourself to humanize it arbitrarily before it's due.

notobtuse wrote: »

One thing I can't wrap my head around is many of the same people who champion the right to have an abortion are the very same people who are vehemently opposed to the death penalty.

I am open minded on the death penalty myself. As it has never really been a hot topic here in Ireland, I have never taken the time to form my opinions on it. I actually somewhat suspect I might support it more readily than many might expect. But I do not know.

However I imagine that were I to do so that the different for me would be that the fetus is not, and never has been, a sentient agent. The criminal being executed has and is.

So I see no moral or ethical need to justify abortion. I do see such a need to justify my support, were I to have it, of the death penalty.

notobtuse wrote: »

Science says otherwise... but probably best to agree to disagree.

Not sure what you think "science" says at all here as the terms "baby" and "murder" are conceptual and linguistic and legal..... not scientific.

Science is a methodology by which we make discoveries about reality. It is less involved with deciding what terms we use to describe that reality.

I am afraid therefore that merely shouting the word "science" at people, does not actually form an argument on the subject.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ironicname wrote: »

When is a baby a baby in your opinion?

Welcome new user. You appear to think you are being treated with hostility here, so I hope you find my post quite the opposite. I was asked by a few users to step in and speak with you, precisely for that reason. I am on a work related hiatus from boards.ie at present but I will fling out a few points for your consideration.

The answer for me is not so much in terms like baby and fetus but in terms like person. For me we should treat it as a person, with all the rights of that station, as soon as we have good reason to suspect it has become a sentient agent.

This thankfully does not appear to occur until a LONG time after most abortions happen. Over 92% of abortions happening in or before week 12 and the near totality of them by week 16.

There is nothing in our current science that I am aware of that suggests that the fetus has in ANY way developed the faculty of sentience or consciousness at those stages. And is in fact some number of weeks off doing so.

Ironicname wrote: »

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.

Other people have already pointed out that the issue with the term is that it is not representative at all, nothing to do with it being palatable.

However I would add a further concern. Abortion is a MASSIVELY divisive issue. And the more divisive an issue becomes the more valuable common ground becomes.

And the one common ground that both sides of this issue have is that almost all of us would prefer little or no abortions actually ever happen. The term you choose not only ignores that common ground, it literally launches missiles at it to destroy it and then napalms it for good measure.

What has always concerned me deeply however is the number of people against abortion who are ALSO against many of the initiatives pro choice people support for reducing abortions. Such as contraception, earlier and more comprehensive sexual education of our children in schools, and even things like social welfare payments for single parents.

Ironicname wrote: »

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

Not for me because my position is based on personhood not medical viability. As you rightly point out medical viability is a moving target. I somewhat expect our technology to reach the point where under the right ministrations of our technology a zygote is viable outside the womb from conception.

Where that would leave the people of the "Pro choice until viable" persuasion I guess you can only ask them.

Ironicname wrote: »

It is a complicated issue

It is and it isn't. I think people make it a lot more complicated for themselves than it actually needs to be. Usually by hanging their concept of ethics of red herrings that should have nothing to do with ethics. Like DNA and flapping tongues and little fingers and other things that just arbitrarily happen to pluck the heart strings in their particular harp.

One can quite simplify the issue by asking oneself what morals, rights and ethics even are in the first place. What are they for. What are they in the business of doing? Where do they come from. And then ultimately to what do they apply.

Assuming your answers to that do not involve some imaginary deity for which we have no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning even exists........... then you might find, like I did, that those answers automatically determine your position on abortion by default. No further complication is really required at that point.

nozzferrahhtoo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However I imagine that were I to do so that the different for me would be that the fetus is not, and never has been, a sentient agent. The criminal being executed has and is.

Here are some counterarguments ...
Is a 1 hour old baby a sentient agent?
Is someone with end stage dementia a sentient agent?

I am not anti abortion per se but this line of argument doesn't work for me. It's intellectually dishonest to use the sentient agent test. I think of it as necessary to trade one developing life off against the discomfort of another. The same reason I think euthanasia should be legal if the person in question is willing and able to consent to it. But we should be clear about it, when you get into defining what a human life is you are treading in some very unsavory company with the likes of eugenicists. Better IMO to admit it is a developing human and take it from there. Less danger that way of dehumanisation.

For the record I am an athiest, believe in equality for everyone, support SSM, the whole 9 yards. Not because someone told me it was cool, but because I believe it's the right thing to do.

Hotblack Desiato

You can't claim to be in favour of equality in any meaningful sense if you believe a woman's rights are diminished as soon as she becomes pregnant.

As for the hoary old chestnut of eugenics, abortion has got nothing to do with eugenics.

Everything mentioned on this thread has been discussed dozens of times before. The anti-choice arguments have always been found severely lacking, and last year the electorate found them far from convincing. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change, either. Abortion is here and it is here to stay.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Here are some counterarguments ...
Is a 1 hour old baby a sentient agent Is someone with end stage dementia a sentient agent?

That is not a counter argument it is a question. And a useful one to frame my position. To our knowledge the pre-requisities at the level of the brain to be conscious are present yes. We have good reason to suspect the faculty of consciousness is present and online and we are therefore dealing with a sentience.

Not so with the fetus at 12 weeks. It not only does not have that faculty, but never has had it either. It is not merely present but offline, like for example in a coma patient, it is in fact entirely absent and has never been there. Which is a key difference. If we discuss criminals for execution, coma patients, dementia patients, and so forth we are in ALL cases still talking about an agent with that faculty. With a fetus.... we simply aren't. No matter how much it's flapping its fingers and tongue around might make someone go "awwwww it gives me da feelzzz!".

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not anti abortion per se but this line of argument doesn't work for me. It's intellectually dishonest to use the sentient agent test.

If you say so. But given your say so is the ONLY basis for this position you have offered here I see no reason to agree. I see nothing dishonest about it. Perhaps elaboration would be useful therefore? Is it dishonest by virtue of you having called it so? Or is there a more coherent and defensible basis for calling my intellectual honesty into question here?

Deleted User wrote: »

But we should be clear about it, when you get into defining what a human life is you are treading in some very unsavory company with the likes of eugenicists.

To me that is like saying that boxing is like lawn bowling because you breath when doing both. The overlap is minimal.... at best.... and rather forced if being honest.

If I do biology I am in the company of eugenicists too as it happens. So too if I do any research into whether average intelligence might vary across racial divides. If the most minor of overlaps is to be used to Godwin this thread and my post then your bar is..... even being generous.... remarkably low and.... I fear..... somewhat contrived.

Hell if I work on improving crop yields I guess that puts me in the company of Stalin.

Deleted User wrote: »

Better IMO to admit it is a developing human and take it from there. Less danger that way of dehumanisation.

No part of my position takes any issue with that. I do not need to "admit" anything therefore. It is entirely congruent with everything I have said.

As I said to another user, the problem here is not dehumanisation. Quite the opposite. It is preventing people "humanzing" things without due. Something that is quite common to our species alas. We have a natural tendency to attribute agency, intent, emotion, will, experience and more to all sorts of things, even demonstrably inanimate objects.

In fact my position would not only NOT be dehumanization but a call for us to be very clear about what we mean by "human" and "Human" in different contexts. In a way that would be the opposite of the Godwin move you tried to pull above. The fact that, for example, I value the sentient agent above all else means that absolutely nothing about my position would warrant or call for anything that happened in placed like Germany.

Further as we progress as a species towards things like General Artificial Intelligence we may have to question what it is we value when we engage in ethics and rights and morality. Merely shouting "Human" at things will in that situation no longer suffice. My position however is already entirely prepared for this.

Fast Twitch

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.

You really don't know what democracy truly means. A democracy is judged on how it treats its minorities.

So not caring makes for a lousy Democrat.

Ironicname

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Welcome new user. You appear to think you are being treated with hostility here, so I hope you find my post quite the opposite. I was asked by a few users to step in and speak with you, precisely for that reason. I am on a work related hiatus from boards.ie at present but I will fling out a few points for your consideration.

Thanks for your response. I really appreciate it and you've given me a lot to think about

Harvey Weinstein

Ironicname wrote: »

Thanks for your response. I really appreciate it and you've given me a lot to think about

Ironic username there's no point attempting to reason, they cannot under any circumstances admit the truth of what they advocate. Which makes them cowards of course.
At least Senator Catherine Noone was honest when she stated live on air "of course abortion means the termination of a child's life"

And obviously abortion is Eugenics.. In every sense.. 100%
Especially when it comes to Downs syndrome etc.

uptherebels

Fast Twitch wrote: »

You really don't know what democracy truly means. A democracy is judged on how it treats its minorities.

So not caring makes for a lousy Democrat.

i'm fully aware what democracy means thanks.
My caring was about another users comment to whether the 700,000 no voters disappear or not. They can stay or go, it makes no difference to me.
They had their vote, had their chance to make a valid case. I have no interest in listening to the same failed arguments ad nauseum.
when they come up with something new/valid, i will be all ears.

Harvey Weinstein

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Ironic username there's no point attempting to reason, they cannot under any circumstances admit the truth of what they advocate. Which makes them cowards of course.
At least Senator Catherine Noone was honest when she stated live on air "of course abortion means the termination of a child's life"

And obviously abortion is Eugenics.. In every sense.. 100%
Especially when it comes to Downs syndrome etc.

She also said that the pro life campaign were
attempting to "blur the lines and the facts and the evidence".

Fast Twitch

uptherebels wrote: »

i'm fully aware what democracy means thanks.
My caring was about another users comment to whether the 700,000 no voters disappear or not. They can stay or go, it makes no difference to me.
They had their vote, had their chance to make a valid case. I have no interest in listening to the same failed arguments ad nauseum.
when they come up with something new/valid, i will be all ears.

Not failed arguments, you just don't agree with them.

No side will come up with something new. Some will believe a foetus is unique and precious life, something to be cherished. Others feel the woman's right to choice is paramount.

Neither argument fails. Both are passionately held views. Just because a country voted one way in 1983 and another in 2018 will not stifle debate, one way or the other.

That, my friend, is democracy.

nozzferrahhtoo

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

they cannot under any circumstances admit the truth of what they advocate.

Yet I have been perfectly open AND clear about what I advocate. Sorry reality does not match your narrative.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

And obviously abortion is Eugenics.. In every sense.. 100%

Except in the sense of what the word ACTUALLY means. Other than the word not meaning what you want to pretend though, I am sure you are all good.

Fast Twitch wrote: »

Neither argument fails. Both are passionately held views.

Interesting though that my position is not even remotely close to EITHER of the ones you describe however.

Faugheen

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Ironic username there's no point attempting to reason, they cannot under any circumstances admit the truth of what they advocate. Which makes them cowards of course.
At least Senator Catherine Noone was honest when she stated live on air "of course abortion means the termination of a child's life"

And obviously abortion is Eugenics.. In every sense.. 100%
Especially when it comes to Downs syndrome etc.

Use every excuse you want. If a woman decides not to terminate you don't delve into every condition or every circumstance of that woman's pregnancy.

Why is it only when it's unborn and the woman decides to terminate for whatever reason do you actually give a sh*t?

Not only don't you trust women, but you want to control them. With a username like Harvey Weinstein, that's absolutely zero surprise.

SusieBlue

Fast Twitch wrote: »

Not failed arguments, you just don't agree with them.

No side will come up with something new. Some will believe a foetus is unique and precious life, something to be cherished. Others feel the woman's right to choice is paramount.

Neither argument fails. Both are passionately held views. Just because a country voted one way in 1983 and another in 2018 will not stifle debate, one way or the other.

That, my friend, is democracy.

And both passionately held views are now upheld and accounted for by the law.
Abortions are not compulsory for those who disagree with them, and abortion is available under certain circumstances for those who need that option.

It’s the fairest arrangement.
If abortion was to be outlawed again, there would be no democracy, because we would be taking that choice away from everyone, regardless of their circumstances.

Pro life is saying ‘I know what’s best for you’.
Pro choice is saying ‘YOU know what’s best for you’.

You don’t have to like it, and you don’t have to agree with it. But it takes a serious amount of superiority and notions of grandeur to assume to decide something like that on behalf of someone else.
Particularly when the only person who will have to live with the repercussions and responsibility is the person the pro-life side are actively trying to take the choice away from.
It’s mind boggling.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

And both passionately held views are now upheld and accounted for by the law.
Abortions are not compulsory for those who disagree with them, and abortion is available under certain circumstances for those who need that option.

It’s the fairest arrangement.
If abortion was to be outlawed again, there would be no democracy, because we would be taking that choice away from everyone, regardless of their circumstances.

Pro life is saying ‘I know what’s best for you’.
Pro choice is saying ‘YOU know what’s best for you’.

You don’t have to like it, and you don’t have to agree with it. But it takes a serious amount of superiority and notions of grandeur to assume to decide something like that on behalf of someone else.
Particularly when the only person who will have to live with the repercussions and responsibility is the person the pro-life side are actively trying to take the choice away from.
It’s mind boggling.

The "only person" is an interesting phrase to use. Obviously pro-life people who argue that there are two people to consider when a woman is pregnant. That is the philosophical chasm between the two sides. If you value life, and most people do, the question of when it begins can never be separated from this debate. There can't be meeting of the minds of it, it's literally a life and death debate to one side vs personal rights to other. I am not surprised there's been decades of pushback on Roe v Wade in the US, the people who believe in pro-life tend to hold it as deep belief.

Personally think contraception should be free and freely available, sex ed should be comprehensive and people should be strongly encouraged to have complete sexual freedom but it's fiction beyond a certain point to say a foetus shouldn't have some rights.

SusieBlue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The "only person" is an interesting phrase to use. Obviously pro-life people who argue that there are two people to consider when a woman is pregnant. That is the philosophical chasm between the two sides. If you value life, and most people do, the question of when it begins can never be separated from this debate. There can't be meeting of the minds of it, it's literally a life and death debate to one side vs personal rights to other. I am not surprised there's been decades of pushback on Roe v Wade in the US, the people who believe in pro-life tend to hold it as deep belief.

Personally think contraception should be free and freely available, sex ed should be comprehensive and people should be strongly encouraged to have complete sexual freedom but it's fiction beyond a certain point to say a foetus shouldn't have some rights.

Pro-Life people can believe whatever the hell they want, they just shouldn’t get to inflict that belief on me or on society, many of whom disagree with them.
Why should I have to live my life arrested by someone’s else’s morals?

There is no need for a meeting of the minds. Those who are pro-life need to accept that others are entitled to their own beliefs on the matter and that they have absolutely no right to interfere in the private matters of other people.

From the founding of the Irish state until the initial ‘83 referendum the unborn had zero constitutional rights whatsoever and society was just fine. There is no need for them.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Pro-Life people can believe whatever the hell they want, they just shouldn’t get to inflict that belief on me or on society, many of whom disagree with them.
Why should I have to live my life arrested by someone’s else’s morals?

There is no need for a meeting of the minds. Those who are pro-life need to accept that others are entitled to their own beliefs on the matter and that they have absolutely no right to interfere in the private matters of other people.

From the founding of the Irish state until the initial ‘83 referendum the unborn had zero constitutional rights whatsoever and society was just fine. There is no need for them.

Presumably you don't mind when the state arrest people who's actions you disagree with? I don't even mean the big ticket items like murder or rape, i presume you endorse the right of the state to arrest drink drivers and tax cheats etc? We all curb our individual rights to live in a functioning society.

For much of human history landless peasants (ie, us) had **** all rights either. We accrued rights over a painfully long time. We've a long way to go in giving rights to other sentient beings like animals etc.

As for society being fine before 1983, there was so much riding (and quite a lot of extra marital riding) going on that we had enough surplus people to send to mother and child homes, send into religious orders and send overseas. It was a profoundly sick society across a number of levels, where a husband could not be charged with raping his wife, to take one charming example. We've come a long way, but we've a long way to go.

Hotblack Desiato

Fast Twitch wrote: »

A democracy is judged on how it treats its minorities.

Yeah, all that forcing No voters to have abortions is a really dick move. :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

At least Senator Catherine Noone was honest when she stated live on air "of course abortion means the termination of a child's life"

If an embryo is a child, there are many thousands of frozen children out there just waiting to be rescued, what are you doing about that? Will you force women to be implanted with these "children"? If not, why not?

And obviously abortion is Eugenics.. In every sense.. 100%

Eugenics is the planned elimination of certain heritable characteristics. Exactly which heritable characteristics are eliminated, given that the vast majority of women having abortions have already, or will go on to, give birth?
I sincerely doubt the stats for the men involved are any different, either.
Abortion has got nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics.

Especially when it comes to Downs syndrome etc.

Which Irish abortion law currently does not allow for, but hopefully will be amended within a few years.