Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

1…3839414344…55

Comments

  • #1202
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    The Bishop Basher wrote: »
    You're entitled to hold that opinion but it is only that. Your opinion.

    Life just isn't that black and white especially when discussing this topic.

    Out of interest, when does a fetus become a baby in your opinion ?

    Is it when the baby is born, just before it's born or some other time during the pregnancy ?

    Genuine question..

    when it is capable of sentience. which doesn't occur by 12 weeks and not by 16 weeks either so i'm very comfortable with the laws that were enacted.


  • #1203
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    The Bishop Basher wrote: »
    You're entitled to hold that opinion but it is only that. Your opinion.

    That makes it sound like all opinions are somehow equal. But they are not. After all if one person says a fetus is not a child, another person says the fetus is a child, and another person says a pineapple is a child..... they are all just opinions sure..... but that does not grant them ANY level of equality.

    Words have meanings, definitions, etymology, history, applications, context. To shout "that is all just an opinion" at disagreements there is to simply paper over and ignore..... well everything. And ignore the fact that is the person saying a fetus is not a child, and a person claiming the pineapple is a child, express their opinions..... one is clearly going to be able to substantiate and argue his position, grounding it in a shared reality, then the other.

    We need to go beyond opinion and say "Why do you hold that position exactly, what do you mean with these words, what is the transition between them" and then evaluate all these "opinions" in relation to each other to ascertain which ones are most couched in argument, evidence, data and reasons and which ones are..... nothing more than..... mere opinion asserted for effect or agenda.


  • #1204
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,739 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    The Bishop Basher wrote: »
    Of course not.

    You're equating a fetus with a toddler or teenager which is plainly nonsense.

    That's a tactic normally applied by the no side.

    That's exactly my point. A toddler isn't the same as a teenager in lots of ways, but in terms of how we view killing one, they are exactly the same, and so are all the ages in between.

    Killing a child of any age is completely unacceptable to us.

    So I don't believe that people who voted to allow abortion actually think that it is killing a child. Obviously they must think that it's something else - something they may disapprove of, perhaps very strongly - but they clearly don't think they voted to give people the choice to kill a child.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1205
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,221 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    ....... wrote: »
    We will have to agree to disagree.

    The prolifers pushed the agenda that a Yes vote was a yes to murdering children.

    I dont think most people in the country voted to murder children. At all.

    I think *most* people who voted can see the difference between a fetus and a child.

    Most people voted to repeal the awful eighth amendment and let the Dail legislate.


  • #1206
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,221 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    when it is capable of sentience. which doesn't occur by 12 weeks and not by 16 weeks either so i'm very comfortable with the laws that were enacted.

    This was in response to someone "asking" when a fetus became a 'baby.' There's no legal definition nor likely a scientific one afaik for "baby." Child, yes. Baby is a 'Hallmark greeting card' term (popular, for sure.)


  • Advertisement
  • #1207
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Igotadose wrote: »
    This was in response to someone "asking" when a fetus became a 'baby.' There's no legal definition nor likely a scientific one afaik for "baby." Child, yes. Baby is a 'Hallmark greeting card' term (popular, for sure.)

    all babies are children. not all children are babies. I really dont get what you are trying to say.


  • #1208
    SexBobomb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 442 ✭✭SexBobomb


    ....... wrote: »
    I have no idea and I dont think its relevant when a fetus becomes a baby tbh.

    What is relevant is when we are dealing with an entity that is equal in moral terms to the woman that is carrying it. So when it possesses brain chemistry, consciousness etc...

    I dont know exactly when a fetus possesses those characteristics either but I know that they definitely are NOT present at 12 weeks.

    This is a all pretty vague tbh and thats what the debate is around as I see it. I really don't expect anyone to have these answers on boards by the way so don't take it as an attack.


  • #1209
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    This is a all pretty vague tbh and thats what the debate is around as I see it. I really don't expect anyone to have these answers on boards by the way so don't take it as an attack.

    It isn't vague at all. what is vague is the anti-choice side trying to prove that fetus is somehow equivalent to a child. They have never actually advanced any arguments.


  • #1210
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    This is a all pretty vague tbh and thats what the debate is around as I see it. I really don't expect anyone to have these answers on boards by the way so don't take it as an attack.

    Which bit do you find vague?

    We (as in we, the medical and scientific community) dont know exactly when consciousness and sentience arise in fetuses.

    But we know that it is NOT there at 12 weeks. Or at 16 weeks.

    What part of that do you find vague?


  • #1211
    Jaster Rogue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭Jaster Rogue


    ....... wrote: »
    Which bit do you find vague?

    We (as in we, the medical and scientific community) dont know exactly when consciousness and sentience arise in fetuses.

    But we know that it is NOT there at 12 weeks. Or at 16 weeks.

    What part of that do you find vague?


    The vague part is your opinion that if a human life does not hold the property of consciousness, then that life is fair game for termination. I disagree with that opinion on a moral basis, as given the chance to develop in utero that human life will slowly gain consciousness. Just as an unconscious person in a comatose state will slowly regain consciousness. I don't agree they are fair game for murdering. Or does your argument only apply to life that has not previously been conscious, and if so why?


  • Advertisement
  • #1212
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    The vague part is your opinion that if a human life does not hold the property of consciousness, then that life is fair game for termination. I disagree with that opinion on a moral basis, as given the chance to develop in utero that human life will slowly gain consciousness. Just as an unconscious person in a comatose state will slowly regain consciousness. I don't agree they are fair game for murdering. Or does your argument only apply to life that has not previously been conscious, and if so why?

    being unconscious and never having consciousness are not the same.


  • #1213
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    The vague part is your opinion that if a human life does not hold the property of consciousness, then that life is fair game for termination. I disagree with that opinion on a moral basis, as given the chance to develop in utero that human life will slowly gain consciousness. Just as an unconscious person in a comatose state will slowly regain consciousness. I don't agree they are fair game for murdering. Or does your argument only apply to life that has not previously been conscious, and if so why?

    Comatose people are living citizens who are afforded a full range of human rights, and killing them is against the law and illegal.

    Potential people should not be afforded the same human rights as actual people. Especially not at the expense of the human rights of actual people.
    Its really that simple.


  • #1214
    Jaster Rogue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭Jaster Rogue


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    being unconscious and never having consciousness are not the same.


    That's a very vague statement - you need to expand on it by clarifying why they are not the same if they will both ultimately become conscious again? And who has the moral authority to decide they are not the same?


  • #1215
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    That's a very vague statement - you need to expand on it by clarifying why they are not the same if they will both ultimately become conscious again? And who has the moral authority to decide they are not the same?

    Who has the moral authority to decide that they are? Especially on behalf of other people who may disagree with their perception of when consciousness occurs? In regards to potential people, I mean.


  • #1216
    sabat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,895 ✭✭✭sabat


    What don't you god-bothering pro-lifer brigade anti-choicers get here? It was a baby when they went for the test, then it was a fetus when they had it aborted, and then when the final test result came back it was a baby again. Simple.


  • #1217
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,221 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    all babies are children. not all children are babies. I really dont get what you are trying to say.

    When you're asked 'When does it become a baby', that's looking for an emotional response. It becomes a child, when it's born, under the law. The rest is opinion. When it can be aborted without legal consequence is up to 12 weeks in Ireland without restriction, and later with concurrence of medical authorities.

    No baby was aborted at the hospital in the case that this thread's about. It was a fetus.


  • #1218
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    That's a very vague statement - you need to expand on it by clarifying why they are not the same if they will both ultimately become conscious again?

    Nothing vague about it at all. One has never had consciousness. the other has but temporarily does not.
    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    And who has the moral authority to decide they are not the same?

    as a nation we have decided that we have that authority.


  • #1219
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,221 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    sabat wrote: »
    What don't you god-bothering pro-lifer brigade anti-choicers get here? It was a baby when they went for the test, then it was a fetus when they had it aborted, and then when the final test result came back it was a baby again. Simple.

    It was never a baby. It was always a fetus, there's no legal definition of baby, it's just a description of a born child.

    Like infant, toddler, teenager...


  • #1220
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    The vague part is your opinion that if a human life does not hold the property of consciousness, then that life is fair game for termination.

    Whats vague about that? Its pretty clear cut. If it hasnt attained consciousness/sentience, then its quite clearly NOT the same level of entity as a living conscious woman is - so if she wishes to abort it at that point - thats fine by me.
    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    I disagree with that opinion on a moral basis, as given the chance to develop in utero that human life will slowly gain consciousness.

    Not necessarily. The human body rejects an alarming number of pregnancies. Do you feel we should mourn every miscarriage? Perhaps we should criminally investigate every women who miscarries for murder? No? Why not?
    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    I don't agree they are fair game for murdering.

    Oh dear. Very difficult to take you seriously when you make silly statements like the above.
    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    Or does your argument only apply to life that has not previously been conscious, and if so why?

    Of course. A comatose person has consciousness. Like a sleeping person. They have already attained "personhood" for want of a better term. In fact, above consciousness, they have personality, families, a place in the world where they have people who love them. Loads of reasons why they are important. A fetus has none of this. And may never attain any of it.

    If you genuinely cannot see why a fetus (below say 16 weeks) is not remotely analagous to a comatose person then Im not sure how to explain it to you tbh.

    Try some of Nozz's posts - he has more patience for this kind of blinkered, religiously informed thinking than I do.


  • #1221
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Igotadose wrote: »
    When you're asked 'When does it become a baby', that's looking for an emotional response. It becomes a child, when it's born, under the law. The rest is opinion. When it can be aborted without legal consequence is up to 12 weeks in Ireland without restriction, and later with concurrence of medical authorities.

    No baby was aborted at the hospital in the case that this thread's about. It was a fetus.

    I'm not sure what point of mine you are arguing against


  • Advertisement
  • #1222
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,221 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I'm not sure what point of mine you are arguing against

    None whatsoever! Sorry for not making that clearer!


  • #1223
    Jaster Rogue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭Jaster Rogue


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Who has the moral authority to decide that they are? Especially on behalf of other people who may disagree with their perception of when consciousness occurs? In regards to potential people, I mean.


    My opinion is if they will both ultimately become conscious beings (whether for the first time or regaining consciousness), then it's immoral to kill.


  • #1224
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    That's a very vague statement - you need to expand on it by clarifying why they are not the same if they will both ultimately become conscious again? And who has the moral authority to decide they are not the same?

    Nothing vague about it and we as a nation do indeed have the moral authority to decide it and we have done.


  • #1225
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    My opinion is if they will both ultimately become conscious beings (whether for the first time or regaining consciousness), then it's immoral to kill.

    That's great, I respect that belief and your right to apply that morality to your own uterus. I don't think you should get to decide for me or for anyone else though.


  • #1226
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    My opinion is if they will both ultimately become conscious beings (whether for the first time or regaining consciousness), then it's immoral to kill.

    Why?

    What makes a fetus worthy of being protected?


  • #1227
    Jaster Rogue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭Jaster Rogue


    ....... wrote: »
    They have already attained "personhood" for want of a better term. In fact, above consciousness, they have personality, families, a place in the world where they have people who love them. Loads of reasons why they are important. A fetus has none of this. And may never attain any of it.


    So your list of criteria for human life that's fair game for murder is those who don't possess the following properties/qualities:


    Consciousness
    Personality
    Family
    People who love them
    Other reasons they are important


    So if an unconscious homeless person, with no personality due to mental health issues/disorders, no family, nobody who loves them, and no reason they are important in the world - they are OK to murder?


    Keep your posts coming I can pick your argument apart all day :pac:


  • #1228
    Jaster Rogue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭Jaster Rogue


    ....... wrote: »
    Why?

    What makes a fetus worthy of being protected?


    What makes an unconscious person worthy of being protected? You started the consciousness argument.


  • #1229
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    So your list of criteria for human life that's fair game for murder is those who don't possess the following properties/qualities:


    Consciousness
    Personality
    Family
    People who love them


    So if an unconscious homeless person, with no personality due to mental health issues/disorders, no family, and nobody who loves them - they are OK to murder?


    Keep your posts coming I can pick your argument apart all day :pac:

    that has already been answered for you.


  • #1230
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    What makes an unconscious person worthy of being protected? You started the consciousness argument.

    that has already been answered for you.


  • Advertisement
  • #1231
    Jaster Rogue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭Jaster Rogue


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    that has already been answered for you.


    Great rebuttal :rolleyes: Show me where it's been answered.


Advertisement
Advertisement