nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

When Does Life Begin?

end of the road

MOD NOTE:
This thread has been split off from the main referendum thread and has been created specifically to discuss the question of when does human life begin. Please keep all conversation of this nature here.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Adoption is a choice for someone who doesn't want to be a parent, but it doesn't help someone who doesn't want to be pregnant in the first place. You're asking someone to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and all that it entails, so someone else can become a parent.

And as an aside, the majority of Irish women who've travelled to Britain for an abortion wouldn't have been able to put the child up for adoption anyway. That's because the majority of women who travel are married, and up to November last year, the law didn't allow married couples to put their children up for adoption.

the unborn's right to life trumps the want not to be pregnant. put the child up for adoption, it's not the job of the state to facilitate or allow the killing of human beings unless absolutely medically necessary. only backward regressive countries allow abortion outside medical necessity.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But only a part. There are any number of other reasons why people can and do end up pregnant when they do not want to be.

Rape and abuse is mentioned often of course. Failed contraception is mentioned often.

What is not mentioned as often, but is equally valid so I try and mention it whenever I can.... is that often the people getting pregnant planned and intended to. But subsequently something in their circumstances changed.

Their work or financial situation maybe. Their health physically. Their health mentally as a result of a hardship. The relationship they were in during the conception may change or end. Or any number of other things commensurate with the vagaries of the multitude of individual lives and life stories that surround us each and every day.

things happen but most people get on with it and work around it. killing the unborn because of those issues is a copout in terms of one's responsibilities.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

none of these are valid reasons for abortion on demand to be availible in ireland. we don't need to provide abortion outside medical necessity. it's not the job or responsibility of the state, upholding the right to life very much is however. the taxes to deal with people in the foster care system can be found easily, it's mismanagement of our taxes that are the problem rather then the amount of taxes collected. again, more desperation to justify the unjustifiable.

NuMarvel wrote: »

But in any case, I don't think forcing women to continue a unwanted pregnancy, especially one where it's intended that the child be put up for adoption, is an appropriate or proportionate response to someone making a mistake. A standard pregnancy already brings increased risks of mental illness, I would imagine that the risks are even greater again for a crisis pregnancy.

it's a necessary responce. the unborn have a right to life. that right must be upheld. the pregnant woman must get the support needed. abortion on demand and the subsiquent killing of the unborn outside medical necessity has no place in ireland.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

things happen but most people get on with it and work around it. killing the unborn because of those issues is a copout in terms of one's responsibilities.

So I see you are continuing your usual tactic of ignoring and dodging my posts to you, and then waiting some time before making the SAME POINTS I rebutted in the posts you ignored.

I have already made SEVERAL posts to you detailing how your definition of "taking responsibility" is not the correct one, and making decisions that differ from the ones YOU imagine you would make is not a "cop out". You just run away and ignore it when I explain that, then pop up days or weeks later making the same error.

As for "most people", I doubt you have the first shred of statistics to back up what "most people" do with unwanted or crisis pregnancies but even if you could, so what? What "most people" do in a given situation (even when the situations are comparable, which they often are not) does not dictate what EVERY person should do, has to do, or might do.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I see you are continuing your usual tactic of ignoring and dodging my posts to you, and then waiting some time before making the SAME POINTS I rebutted in the posts you ignored.

I have already made SEVERAL posts to you detailing how your definition of "taking responsibility" is not the correct one, and making decisions that differ from the ones YOU imagine you would make is not a "cop out". You just run away and ignore it when I explain that, then pop up days or weeks later making the same error.

As for "most people", I doubt you have the first shred of statistics to back up what "most people" do with unwanted or crisis pregnancies but even if you could, so what? What "most people" do in a given situation (even when the situations are comparable, which they often are not) does not dictate what EVERY person should do, has to do, or might do.

one's problems do not justify the killing of others.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

one's problems do not justify the killing of others.

And I have dealt with that one too in all the posts you dodged and ignored.

At this point it seems like you have 4, maybe 5, points you want to repeat as often as you can. Even if it means ignoring rebuttals to those points, waiting a few days, and then repeating it again.

This is not an honest way to conduct conversation. Nor is it a functional way as it involves merely compelling people to repeat the same things over and over again to you.

But you have been told time and time again that many of us neither see the fetus as a valid and meaningful "other" nor have we seen any reason why we should or might. Except the concept of "a right to become sentient" which you invented in one thread and then ran away from since.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I have dealt with that one too in all the posts you dodged and ignored.

At this point it seems like you have 4, maybe 5, points you want to repeat as often as you can. Even if it means ignoring rebuttals to those points, waiting a few days, and then repeating it again.

This is not an honest way to conduct conversation. Nor is it a functional way as it involves merely compelling people to repeat the same things over and over again to you.

But you have been told time and time again that many of us neither see the fetus as a valid and meaningful "other" nor have we seen any reason why we should or might. Except the concept of "a right to become sentient" which you invented in one thread and then ran away from since.

you haven't "dealt" with anything. you put across arguments that just don't stack up when put to the test. i haven't ignored or dodged anything that wasn't relevant to the discussion, i have dodged and ignored stuff that isn't relevant as that would take the thread off topic.
a fetus is a human being, you not seeing it as such doesn't change that. the reality is you have to dehumanise it to justify it's killing for extreme contraceptive, lifestyle and convenience reasons. you have been given reasons why it is a human being and why it has a right to life and why that must remain to be the case. no argument has been put forward that stacks up, for abortion on demand and the subsiquent industrial killing of unborn human beings.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

you haven't "dealt" with anything. you put across arguments that just don't stack up when put to the test.

Except yes I did deal with it all, and you have not "tested" anything as every time the conversation starts, you run away from it. Either entirely ignoring it or, less often, merely shouting "irrelevant" at it and THEN entirely ignoring it.

What "tests" you think have happened therefore are entirely unclear.

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't ignored or dodged anything that wasn't relevant to the discussion, i have dodged and ignored stuff that isn't relevant as that would take the thread off topic.

That is simply, blatantly, and demonstrably untrue. I can list for anyone who wants to contact me and ask a MULTITUDE of posts you ignored, that contained entirely on topic points that you simply could not reply to and so ran away. You simply have not engaged with the discourse in anything remotely approaching good faith.

end of the road wrote: »

a fetus is a human being, you not seeing it as such doesn't change that.

Except I DO see it as such. So inventing positions for me that I do not hold only compounds the dishonesty in your posts thus far. The issue is I see it as Human in terms of biological taxonomy, and have never denied or disputed that.

What I do not see, least of all from you, is a single argument establishing why it should be seen as a human being with rights, or something towards which we should have moral and ethical concern.

And when pressed on that point all you ever managed to do, the one time you did not simply ignore the conversation, was invent a "Right to become sentient". But when pressed on this right, you simply left the conversation. As usual.

end of the road wrote: »

the reality is you have to dehumanise it to justify it's killing

The reality is you have to humanize it in that sense BEFORE I could dehumanize it. One can not pour water out of an empty glass. But you have not done this. At all. Anywhere. Ever. Rather you merely assume it's status as default and then pretend like I have to remove it. But it does not work that way. If YOU want to establish an entity, any entity, as being one with rights, or holding moral and ethical concern, then you have to do that by more than mere "assert, run, return, and repeat" as you have been so far.

end of the road wrote: »

you have been given reasons why it is a human being and why it has a right to life

No, I have not. I have on many occasions been told by you that you have given those reasons. But you have never ACTUALLY done so. You just go from post to post telling me you already have.

Rather than going from post to post repeating over and over that you have done it already, try doing it NOW. I am all ears.

david75

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except yes I did deal with it all, and you have not "tested" anything as every time the conversation starts, you run away from it. Either entirely ignoring it or, less often, merely shouting "irrelevant" at it and THEN entirely ignoring it.

What "tests" you think have happened therefore are entirely unclear.

That is simply, blatantly, and demonstrably untrue. I can list for anyone who wants to contact me and ask a MULTITUDE of posts you ignored, that contained entirely on topic points that you simply could not reply to and so ran away. You simply have not engaged with the discourse in anything remotely approaching good faith.

Except I DO see it as such. So inventing positions for me that I do not hold only compounds the dishonesty in your posts thus far. The issue is I see it as Human in terms of biological taxonomy, and have never denied or disputed that.

What I do not see, least of all from you, is a single argument establishing why it should be seen as a human being with rights, or something towards which we should have moral and ethical concern.

And when pressed on that point all you ever managed to do, the one time you did not simply ignore the conversation, was invent a "Right to become sentient". But when pressed on this right, you simply left the conversation. As usual.

The reality is you have to humanize it in that sense BEFORE I could dehumanize it. One can not pour water out of an empty glass. But you have not done this. At all. Anywhere. Ever. Rather you merely assume it's status as default and then pretend like I have to remove it. But it does not work that way. If YOU want to establish an entity, any entity, as being one with rights, or holding moral and ethical concern, then you have to do that by more than mere "assert, run, return, and repeat" as you have been so far.

No, I have not. I have on many occasions been told by you that you have given those reasons. But you have never ACTUALLY done so. You just go from post to post telling me you already have.

Rather than going from post to post repeating over and over that you have done it already, try doing it NOW. I am all ears.

Don’t waste your energy. This one posts the same 4/5 points over and over and over and over again across multiple threads. Incapable of discussion or reasoning simply robotically churning out the same droning non answers and staying opinion as fact.
It’s frustrating to have to scroll through but best ignored.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

you haven't "dealt" with anything. you put across arguments that just don't stack up when put to the test. i haven't ignored or dodged anything that wasn't relevant to the discussion, i have dodged and ignored stuff that isn't relevant as that would take the thread off topic.
a fetus is a human being, you not seeing it as such doesn't change that. the reality is you have to dehumanise it to justify it's killing for extreme contraceptive, lifestyle and convenience reasons. you have been given reasons why it is a human being and why it has a right to life and why that must remain to be the case. no argument has been put forward that stacks up, for abortion on demand and the subsiquent industrial killing of unborn human beings.

Ah come on now. You spend your time dodging any real discussion and hopping in every so often to repeat your mantra. You never address any arguments that counter your points. You walk awy and then 3 or 4 days later you come back and repeat the same 2 or 3 lines. Your script is always the same.

Your posting style is "say something simple and short"
Ignore the replies.

"Say something aagain simple and short"
Ignore the replies

"Make a 3rd simple point"
Dodge the replies by changing the subject

Dissappear for a week

Start again on point 1
Groundhog day posting.....

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah come on now. You spend your time dodging any real discussion and hopping in every so often to repeat your mantra. You never address any arguments that counter your points. You walk awy and then 3 or 4 days later you come back and repeat the same 2 or 3 lines. Your script is always the same.

Your posting style is "say something simple and short"
Ignore the replies.

"Say something aagain simple and short"
Ignore the replies

"Make a 3rd simple point"
Dodge the replies by changing the subject

Dissappear for a week

Start again on point 1
Groundhog day posting.....

nope wrong. this is all inaccurate. every bit of it. this line of discussion isn't relevant to abortion. i'm here to discuss abortion, not me.

Itssoeasy

This last page of this thread has proven to me despite me hoping that there could be some respectful engagement on this issue it appears we have reached a point where both sides have their positions and no one will change their minds.

And I fear this will be the tone of the debate going forward on radio and tv.

Itssoeasy

I'm not sure why you've thanked my post EOTR. I was including you as you posted on the last page and it was a case of both sides making it pointless. One side thinks it's already won(even though it hasn't) and one side is using extremely emotive language which don't help me as someone who is undecided on how I will vote but neither side helps themselves. And if this thread on boards is a reflection of the general public then we are fecked. It's going to be weeks of two guests on radio and tv yelling at each other.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn's right to life trumps the want not to be pregnant.

Better get to work repealing the 13th amendment, so.

Or are you saying the right to life trumps the right to not be pregnant, but doesn't trump the right to a Ryanair ticket?

That makes no sense.

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Better get to work repealing the 13th amendment, so.

Or are you saying the right to life trumps the right to not be pregnant, but doesn't trump the right to a Ryanair ticket?

That makes no sense.

[EOTR] You can't stop people travelling (as long as you ignore the 100% success rate we had anytime we tried). And it might inconvenience other people, and we all know their rights are more important than the unborn's so we can't have that. And besides, if a woman is going to travel for an abortion, then it shows she really wants it, and that makes it alright.

So in summary, abortion = wrong, but inconveniencing others = more wrong and knowing a woman really wants to have one = less wrong. [/EOTR]

Did I miss anything EOTR?

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I always thought that was covered under the "If she travels, then she obviously wants one", but thinking about it, I agree that it is different again. So, EOTR's position on the issue of travel and the 13th is:

Abortion = wrong
Inconveniencing others = more wrong than abortion
Knowing a woman really wants to have one = less wrong than abortion
A woman can afford it = less wrong again,
Repealing the 13th = No way in hell!

Which means that EOTR puts the unborn's right to life above the woman's right to bodily autonomy below it, but below money and the disruption third parties might face.

That is one seriously screwed up hierarchy of rights...

Chips Lovell

We've split off this from the main referendum thread. It's been created specifically to discuss the question of when does human life begin. Please keep all conversation of this nature here.

Remember to be civil and not to personalise the debate. Address people's points, don't attack their character. And remember, if you don't like what someone has to say, you're always free to ignore them.

Thanks

recedite

They say Life begins at 40.

Moonmumbler

@end of the road Considering scientists can't even agree on what life actually is and means you will find no answer about when human life begins.

But it looks like it doesn't matter to you anyway as your dogmatic views trump any other considerations.

professore

I'll bite.

Where does life begin?

In the abstract, it's the first RNA strand that managed to make a copy of itself back 3.5 billion years ago. That's where life began.

I assume we are talking about a new human life. Well, that's a very difficult question to answer actually. What do you mean by "alive"?

Is it the moment of conception?
Is it when the fetus looks recognisably human?
Is it when the fetus has a heartbeat?
Is it when the fetus can live independently outside the womb?
Is it (as is legally defined in the US) when the newborn baby takes it's first breath?
Is it when a baby can speak and express an opinion or desire of it's own?
Is it when a child can live independently of it's parents?
What about mentally impaired children and adults who can't think for themselves? Are they alive in any meaningful sense?

Or people in long term comas - are they alive?

If you haven't asked yourself the questions above, you haven't thought about abortion in any meaningful sense.

I really don't know the answer to the questions (OK some obvious ones I am clear on my views).

What I do know is that I would like a clear cutoffs and terms to vote yes or no to, copperfastened in the constitution. Not some dopey politicians deciding after the fact. That's why I won't vode yes to a straight repeal vote.

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

That's why I won't vode yes to a straight repeal vote.

Well, then, most people get whatever rules the "dopey politicians" in the UK adopt, and you don't even get to vote for them.

NuMarvel

professore wrote: »

What I do know is that I would like a clear cutoffs and terms to vote yes or no to, copperfastened in the constitution. Not some dopey politicians deciding after the fact. That's why I won't vode yes to a straight repeal vote.

I'm going to respond to this on the original thread because my response isn't really related to the subject matter of this thread.

degsie

According to politicians, only when you get a vote.

LoughNeagh2017

It starts with conception but many don't know the date when that happened so they just count when the baby was born. If you compare a baby born prematurely to a baby that is born after the due date, the baby in the womb is larger than the baby that is born prematurely, if you say this baby is alive when the baby in the womb must be alive too?

Timberrrrrrrr

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

It starts with conception but many don't know the date when that happened so they just count when the baby was born. If you compare a baby born prematurely to a baby that is born after the due date, the baby in the womb is larger than the baby that is born prematurely, if you say this baby is alive when the baby in the womb must be alive too?

Now compare one to a 12 week old fetus. There is very little similarity (please dont anyone post cartoon/CGI images of a 12 week old sucking it's thumb) and a baby born premature has a chance of living outside of the womb, a 12 week.old fetus does not.

end of the road

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Now compare one to a 12 week old fetus. There is very little similarity (please dont anyone post cartoon/CGI images of a 12 week old sucking it's thumb) and a baby born premature has a chance of living outside of the womb, a 12 week.old fetus does not.

the 12 week old fetus is still a human being however. it's just at a different stage of development yet is very much alive to an extent.

oscarBravo

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

It starts with conception...

So taking the morning-after pill is murder?

Brian?

oscarBravo wrote: »

So taking the morning-after pill is murder?

I very rarely involve myself in any debate on abortion, it's such a nuanced subject I rarely feel on steady ground intellectually speaking.

I'd ask the anti abortion side the same question as Oscar above. If life begins at conception, we need to look banning the morning after pill. I disagree it does though.

Picking a 12 week cut off seems arbitrary at best. A foetus is no more likely to live outside the womb at 13 weeks than 1 week. Unless I'm mistaken.

I think we can't enshrine any time limit in the constitution. As with medical advancements the definition of a viable foetus may change very soon.

Given our proximity to the UK and integration into the EU I think it's only fair we benchmark the limit on abortion from our near neighbours. Otherwise we are saying you can have abortion on demand once you can afford a flight.

LeinsterDub

Brian? wrote: »

Picking a 12 week cut off seems arbitrary at best. A foetus is no more likely to live outside the womb at 13 weeks than 1 week. Unless I'm mistaken.

In this debate you have to accept the fact the law is arbitrary. At 17 years 364 days you're a child not responsible enough to vote or drink the next day you're an adult.

SCOOP 64

Just one thing ive learned about life , no matter what age you are life does not get any easier.

Brian?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

In this debate you have to accept the fact the law is arbitrary. At 17 years 364 days you're a child not responsible enough to vote or drink the next day you're an adult.

I'm fine with that. I'm fine with laws have arbitrary age limits etc. . I'm not fine with them being enshrined in the constitution though .

end of the road

Brian? wrote: »

I'd ask the anti abortion side the same question as Oscar above. If life begins at conception, we need to look banning the morning after pill. I disagree it does though.

i wouldn't support banning it no . it's taken quite quickly for the most part and i don't see it as abortion.

Brian? wrote: »

Picking a 12 week cut off seems arbitrary at best. A foetus is no more likely to live outside the womb at 13 weeks than 1 week. Unless I'm mistaken.

I think we can't enshrine any time limit in the constitution. As with medical advancements the definition of a viable foetus may change very soon.

Given our proximity to the UK and integration into the EU I think it's only fair we benchmark the limit on abortion from our near neighbours. Otherwise we are saying you can have abortion on demand once you can afford a flight.

i think harmonisation with british law is exactly what will happen. if not in the short term, definitely long term.