Should a foetus have the right to life?

Sean.3516

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.)

kneemos

The last referendum focused on womens right to choose, and the fact abortion was already available via England or the internet.

Whatever about the foetuses right to life it will always be the womans choice.

Signore Fancy Pants

I'm just here to say the word "foetus" is one of my most hated words, it's up there with "squelch" and "Bae".

Anyway, the first half of "foetus" means 'enemy'.

Carry on.

Sean.3516

kneemos wrote: »

The last referendum focused on womens right to choose, and the fact abortion was already available via England or the internet.

Whatever about the foetuses right to life it will always be the womans choice.

The question I posed in the title of the thread was “should a foetus have the right to life?” Not, “does a woman have the right to an abortion?”

The referendum debate focused on the second question rather than the first and although both questions are important, the second is dependent on the first.

My point is we should seek to discuss the first question in a vacuum (irregardless of what the law is in England, or socio-economic circumstances) and then we can consider the impact of factors other than the foetus’s rights.

Atoms for Peace

In short, no.

kneemos

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The question I posed in the title of the thread was “should a foetus have the right to life?” Not, “does a woman have the right to an abortion?”

The referendum debate focused on the second question rather than the first and although both questions are important, the second is dependent on the first.

My point is we should seek to discuss the first question in a vacuum (irregardless of what the law is in England, or socio-economic circumstances) and then we can consider the impact of factors other than the foetus’s rights.

No it shouldn't. The foetus won't know any different anyway.

Er what?
Asked & answered last year I believe.

Sean.3516

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

In short, no.

I’d prefer that the ppl who comment here have the courtesy to form coherent arguments.

By “argument” I mean a group of statements (premises) that provide the basis for belief in a further statement (conclusion).

Sean.3516

bubblypop wrote: »

Er what?
Asked & answered last year I believe.

I’d refer you to my opening post, particularly the final paragraph enclosed in brackets.

ceadaoin.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The question I posed in the title of the thread was “should a foetus have the right to life?” Not, “does a woman have the right to an abortion?”


My point is we should seek to discuss the first question in a vacuum (irregardless of what the law is in England, or socio-economic circumstances) and then we can consider the impact of factors other than the foetus’s rights.

How can you "discuss the question in a vacuum"? that would be ignoring the pertinent fact that a foetus requires a female body in order to survive, so if it has a right to life, then by default a woman's right to choose is overruled

Sean.3516

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’d refer you to my opening post, particularly the final paragraph enclosed in brackets.

Perhaps you don't understand what the referendum was about?
The 8th amendment to the constitution gave the unborn equal rights to life as the mother. That is what we voted to take away. Therefore we voted that the unborn does not have the right to life.
So, answered already

Sean.3516

ceadaoin. wrote: »

How can you "discuss the question in a vacuum"? that would be ignoring the pertinent fact that a foetus requires a female body in order to survive, so if it has a right to life, then by default a woman's right to choose is overruled

That is precisely why I’m saying we should first seek to determine if the foetus has a right to life. The entire abortion debate hinges on that one point. That’s where the debate ought to start. From first principles.

When I say “discuss in a vacuum” I mean discuss without making appeals to socio-economics, number of women going to england etc. since these have no impact on the science of what is going on with the foetus in the womb.

If one was to cede the foetus has a right to life and then introduce conditions under which that right can be overruled then at least that’s intellectually coherent.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’d refer you to my opening post, particularly the final paragraph enclosed in brackets.

It's still what has been discussed here ad infinitum since the referendum. There's no new angle here. There are multiple threads that covered this angle.

kneemos

Sean.3516 wrote: »

That is precisely why I’m saying we should first seek to determine if the foetus has a right to life. The entire abortion debate hinges on that one point. That’s where the debate ought to start. From first principles.

When I say “discuss in a vacuum” I mean discuss without making appeals to socio-economics, number of women going to england etc. since these have no impact on the science of what is going on with the foetus in the womb.

If one was to cede the foetus has a right to life and then introduce conditions under which that right can be overruled then at least that’s intellectually coherent.

If you want folk to say abortion should only be available in cases of rape or incest I'm sure you'll get some.

Not sure what the point is though,two thirds voted to repeal the law,we know what people think.

Sean.3516

bubblypop wrote: »

Perhaps you don't understand what the referendum was about?
The 8th amendment to the constitution gave the unborn equal rights to life as the mother. That is what we voted to take away. Therefore we voted that the unborn does not have the right to life.
So, answered already

Ah, but you have’nt read the title of the thread or the opening post closely enough.

I’m not asking if the foetus has the right to life.

I’m asking should it have the right to life. Whether or not it actually has the right to life at the present moment in time is irrelevent.

Now maybe you will argue that because the 8th amendment has been repealed, therefore the foetus shouldn’t have the right to life.

ie. You derive the “ought” from the “is”.

However if you’re going to do that I’d like to see you apply the same principle to Pro-Choicers between 1983 and 2018 who rejected the notion that you can derive an “is” from an “ought” by arguing that a foetus shouldnt have the right to life even though it did.

Speaking in riddles, however, the fetus does not have the right to life because we voted to take away it's right to life.
Therefore, it's obvious that the majority believed it should not have it, even though, at that time it did.

Hannibal_Smith

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Ah, but you have’nt read the title of the thread or the opening post closely enough.

I’m not asking if the foetus has the right to life.

I’m asking should it have the right to life. Whether or not it actually has the right to life at the present moment in time is irrelevent.

Now maybe you will argue that because the 8th amendment has been repealed, therefore the foetus shouldn’t have the right to life.

ie. You derive the “ought” from the “is”.

However if you’re going to do that I’d like to see you apply the same principle to Pro-Choicers between 1983 and 2018 who rejected the notion that you can derive an “is” from an “ought” by arguing that a foetus shouldnt have the right to life even though it did.

You seem to be creating discussion with yourself in your own vacuum.

biko

Pro-lifers can keep lobbying, but as far as I am concerned the people have spoken.




edit - wrote "choicers" when i meant "lifers", corrected

Signore Fancy Pants

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Ah, but you have’nt read the title of the thread or the opening post closely enough.

I’m not asking if the foetus has the right to life.

I’m asking should it have the right to life. Whether or not it actually has the right to life at the present moment in time is irrelevent.

Man, you havent nailed youre own colours to the mast yet you are banging on about everyone else doing so.

So OP, should a foetus have the right to life?

I don't think so.

Donnielighto

biko wrote: »

Pro-choicers can keep lobbying, but as far as I am concerned the people have spoken.

Are pro choicers lobbying?

Donnielighto

You can have inconsistent rights btw then primacy takes effect.

Donnielighto

bubblypop wrote: »

Speaking in riddles, however, the fetus does not have the right to life because we voted to take away it's right to life.
Therefore, it's obvious that the majority believed it should not have it, even though, at that time it did.

There was more focus on bodily autonomy so while we did vote on something that decided that issue it wasn't the issue discussed.

It's important to discuss it imo. Personally I think that yeah it's a life you are ending but I don't really mind, more about not inflicting a child on someone who doesn't want one.

Ursus Horribilis

biko wrote: »

Pro-choicers can keep lobbying, but as far as I am concerned the people have spoken.

I think you mean pro-lifers?

Timberrrrrrrr

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The question I posed in the title of the thread was “should a foetus have the right to life?” Not, “does a woman have the right to an abortion?”

The referendum debate focused on the second question rather than the first and although both questions are important, the second is dependent on the first.

My point is we should seek to discuss the first question in a vacuum (irregardless of what the law is in England, or socio-economic circumstances) and then we can consider the impact of factors other than the foetus’s rights.

Before you ask this you should ask yourself who (in your opinion) is more important. The "foetus"? Or the sentient woman who (for whatever reason) has requested a termination.

eviltwin

This debate is so boring now. There are other threads on abortion this could be discussed in.

super_furry

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’d prefer that the ppl who comment here have the courtesy to form coherent arguments.

By “argument” I mean a group of statements (premises) that provide the basis for belief in a further statement (conclusion).

It's still no.

mickuhaha

Fetal development begins from the ninth week after fertilisation and continues until birth. In my opinion I think the fetus should have a right to live at all stages of that category. Either 8 months or nine weeks as suggested to be the start of the fetal stage. A fetus won't know it's alive is not in my opinion an excuse for ending what it is nor is most of the other reasons. In my opinion it has grown enough and all parties are or should be aware of its existence at that stage. I think a fetus has a right to life.

Raconteuse

Once sentient, yes, imo. But case by case, because sometimes the mother's life has to take priority. I don't like the notion that it's not a life until born though.

dudara

Moved from AH > CA

misterme123

You can't have an abortion at 8 months, can you? So of course a foetus has (and should have) some sort of rights, although they are no longer constitutional.

Sean.3516

Sean.3516 wrote: »

However if you’re going to do that I’d like to see you apply the same principle to Pro-Choicers between 1983 and 2018 who rejected the notion that you can derive an “is” from an “ought” by arguing that a foetus shouldnt have the right to life even though it did.

Your argument is disingenuous. What do you want, to have the last word retrospectively? Also, your withering contempt towards pro-choice voters is blatant. Keep fishing, you might land one yet.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

This debate is so boring now. There are other threads on abortion this could be discussed in.

Believe the op managed to get themselves banned from most of them if memory serves me correctly

Kidchameleon

The woman should have the final say weather the fetus lives or dies. That does not take away from the fact that abortion is something that is not good. It is an unfortunate necessity of society.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The question I posed in the title of the thread was “should a foetus have the right to life?” Not, “does a woman have the right to an abortion?”

The referendum debate focused on the second question rather than the first and although both questions are important, the second is dependent on the first.

My point is we should seek to discuss the first question in a vacuum (irregardless of what the law is in England, or socio-economic circumstances) and then we can consider the impact of factors other than the foetus’s rights.

The woman's right to choose to have an abortion should trump the right of the fetus to life, up to a predetermined number of weeks as is the case in Ireland and the UK. After such a time the right of the fetus to life trumps that of the woman's right to choose, unless it is found that there are serious threats to the woman's life in continuing the pregnancy.

You cannot separate the question of these rights as they are entangled.

No.

Inless it can live outside the womb, then, yes.

Once medicine advances enough that a foetus can survive with no adverse affects outside the womb, from 9 weeks, then it should be kept alive.

mickuhaha

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No.

Inless it can live outside the womb, then, yes.

Once medicine advances enough that a foetus can survive with no adverse affects outside the womb, from 9 weeks, then it should be kept alive.

Would you support that considering how so many people object to GM Food , Clones, "test tube babies" and other aspects of life science is making a real possibility. Have you seen mother on Netflix . The way the girl was developed in a bag. Not against it personally just don't see why science would stop pushing the boundaries there and go further to not needing women or men at all.

Jump_In_Jack

This is not a simple yes or no question.
I would rather abortions didn’t happen at all,
but in special cases, such as rape or in cases where the life of the mother is threatened or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality where the unborn cannot survive the pregnancy I can understand why it is necessary sometimes to allow for abortion.

The vote to remove the 8th amendment was based on the promise that the government’s intention was to legalise abortion up to 12 weeks without any justification required,
But beyond 12 weeks there were to be systems to ensure that abortions could only take place where there was a special case.

I’m not in favour of abortions being carried out as part of a lifestyle choice, but if the government follows through on its promise then I would be supportive of that.

However I have concerns with the change in the law.
I hope we don’t have issues with doctors signing off on abortions without proper cause.
I hope that a casual attitude towards abortion doesn’t become more prevalent.
And I hope that abortions due to genetic issues with a viable foetus don’t become more prevalent.

It’s a complex issue but I believe pro-choice within reason is the right line to take.

Eric Cartman

kneemos wrote: »

The last referendum focused on womens right to choose, and the fact abortion was already available via England or the internet.

Whatever about the foetuses right to life it will always be the womans choice.

While not wrong, people voted to repeal the 8th thinking we would get a restrictive system nothing like the UK, since repeal we have had simon harris do a 180 on promises and offer it as a free for all woth just more of a time restriction. Had the irish electorate known what he was going to do, i suspect they would have vat ted against it. As a yes voter I certainly would have, forcing the taxpayer to bare the cost especially when so many morally object is barbaric at best.

Plumbthedepths

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.

YOU ARE.

pinkyeye

Eric Cartman wrote: »

While not wrong, people voted to repeal the 8th thinking we would get a restrictive system nothing like the UK, since repeal we have had simon harris do a 180 on promises and offer it as a free for all woth just more of a time restriction. Had the irish electorate known what he was going to do, i suspect they would have vat ted against it. As a yes voter I certainly would have, forcing the taxpayer to bare the cost especially when so many morally object is barbaric at best.

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??

Seth Brundle

mickuhaha wrote: »

Would you support that considering how so many people object to GM Food , Clones, "test tube babies" and other aspects of life science is making a real possibility. Have you seen mother on Netflix . The way the girl was developed in a bag. Not against it personally just don't see why science would stop pushing the boundaries there and go further to not needing women or men at all.

Aah now, I dont know how anyone could object to Clones - it's a great place with a couple of good pubs!

BoJack Horseman

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Should the foetus/unborn human have the right to life?

The Irish electorate overwhelmingly declared "No" to that.

So, you have your answer.

ohnonotgmail

Eric Cartman wrote: »

While not wrong, people voted to repeal the 8th thinking we would get a restrictive system nothing like the UK, since repeal we have had simon harris do a 180 on promises and offer it as a free for all woth just more of a time restriction. Had the irish electorate known what he was going to do, i suspect they would have vat ted against it. As a yes voter I certainly would have, forcing the taxpayer to bare the cost especially when so many morally object is barbaric at best.

your inability to inform yourself of what you were voting on is an issue for you alone. The new legislation was published before the referendum.

its quite clear that a foetus can have no automatic right to life while unviable outside the womb

thats the long and short if it

thread, despite protests to the contrary,is precisely what it pretends not to be in the OP

Donnielighto

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No.

Inless it can live outside the womb, then, yes.

Once medicine advances enough that a foetus can survive with no adverse affects outside the womb, from 9 weeks, then it should be kept alive.

If you start using those lines of logic it can go down dark places. We need to admit the cognitive dissonance on this one and just face up that we are ending life, it's not a bad thing as the life hasn't done anything yet 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.

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

PhoenixParker

Nobody's right to life extends to demanding/relying on another person's body parts.

For instance, I a fully sentient living breathing human being, might desperately need a blood donation from you. It's a 10 minute procedure, minimal impact on you, but no court would force you to donate.

I don't see why a fetus has more right to life then everyone else.

Donnielighto

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The woman's right to choose to have an abortion should trump the right of the fetus to life, up to a predetermined number of weeks as is the case in Ireland and the UK. After such a time the right of the fetus to life trumps that of the woman's right to choose, unless it is found that there are serious threats to the woman's life in continuing the pregnancy.

You cannot separate the question of these rights as they are entangled.

This would pretty much be my view on it too. There are two things there and the right to life of the foetus kind of coalesces as it becomes more viable until it reaches the point that it trumps the bodily autonomy argument. I'm quiet comfortable with that and it should give enough time to get an abortion if needed outside of that unless it's a non psychological issue threatening the health of the mother.

Donnielighto

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The woman should have the final say weather the fetus lives or dies. That does not take away from the fact that abortion is something that is not good. It is an unfortunate necessity of society.

That's a no to the OP so?

Kidchameleon

Donnielighto wrote: »

That's a no to the OP so?

Sure is

n97 mini

Deleted User wrote: »

No.

Inless it can live outside the womb, then, yes.

Once medicine advances enough that a foetus can survive with no adverse affects outside the womb, from 9 weeks, then it should be kept alive.

I'm struggling to understand this. It has a right to life once the technology exists to support it? What happens next? At 9 months gestation the mother is handed her aborted fetus, which is now a baby?

n97 mini

Raconteuse wrote: »

Once sentient, yes, imo. But case by case, because sometimes the mother's life has to take priority. I don't like the notion that it's not a life until born though.

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.