Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

SusieBlue · 19-06-2019 04:42PM

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:

Do you really think you are the first person to make the above suggestions as if they are some sort of trump card against abortion on Boards, or in fact, even on this thread? Bless your naivety.

....... · 19-06-2019 04:42PM

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:

You havent picked anything apart unfortunately. I do look forward to the day when a prolifer comes up with an actual argument!

You clearly did not understand my post if the above is what you took from it.

Your homeless unconscious person example is just terrible and completely misrepresents the point being made.

Ill say it again for clarity but I do believe you are being willfully obtuse.

A fetus was never conscious. An unconscious person was. They have attained sentience, consciousness and upon being born, citizenship, as they go through life, personality, family, people who love them etc...

A fetus has none of these things. But the most important, the most fundamental, the thing that gives a biological entity moral consideration - is consciousness.

Now do explain why you think we need to protect non conscious non sentient fetuses. Because you havent. Yet.

I am agog.

....... · 19-06-2019 04:43PM

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

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

I have already gone over this for you.

Im not interested in deliberately obtuse trolling. If you have an argument to make, please state it.

Why is a fetus deserving of protection in your opinion?

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 04:43PM

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

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

I've already answered it for you. If you cannot understand then i am not going to repeat myself.

Jaster Rogue · 19-06-2019 04:45PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Do you really think you are the first person to make the above suggestions as if they are some sort of trump card against abortion on Boards, or in fact, even on this thread? Bless your naivety.

Why did the poster I quoted list them as qualities of "personhood" as he calls it then? What relevance has it to the abortion argument? None. I don't believe possessing or lacking any of those properties or qualities listed makes anyone fair game for murder. And you can't prove me wrong, so you resort to posts like above "you're not the first, that has been answered, bla bla bla" = "I've lost the argument".

....... · 19-06-2019 04:47PM

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Why did the poster I quoted list them as qualities of "personhood" as he calls it then? What relevance has it to the abortion argument? None. I don't believe possessing or lacking any of those properties or qualities listed makes anyone fair game for murder. And you can't prove me wrong, so you resort to posts like above "you're not the first, that has been answered, bla bla bla" = "I've lost the argument".

Christ.

I was simply pointing out that born people have a lot of other things that fetuses dont have. And why do they have them? Because they are conscious beings who have lived in the world.

Its getting VERY tedious joining the most minor of dots for you.

Now make your argument as you have been asked to do several times.

Jaster Rogue · 19-06-2019 04:48PM

....... wrote: »

citizenship, as they go through life, personality, family, people who love them etc...

What relevance have these properties and qualities to abortion? If you can answer me that without resorting to "that's been answered already, you're not the first, I'm not repeating myself, if you can't see it there's no point arguing, etc, etc" then I will gracefully concede the debate.

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 04:52PM

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

What relevance have these properties and qualities to abortion? If you can answer me that without resorting to "that's been answered already, you're not the first, I'm not repeating myself, if you can't see it there's no point arguing, etc, etc" then I will gracefully concede the debate.

No you wont.

....... · 19-06-2019 04:52PM

I quite literally answered it in the post above!

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

What relevance have these properties and qualities to abortion? If you can answer me that without resorting to "that's been answered already, you're not the first, I'm not repeating myself, if you can't see it there's no point arguing, etc, etc" then I will gracefully concede the debate.

The only relevance is that only a conscious born person could have attained these qualities. It wasnt the main point. It was me expanding on *other* reasons why unconscious people are not the same as fetuses. Youre like a dog with a bone on something that isnt even that relevant! Unconscious people have lots going for them. Fetuses after a certain point ONLY have consciousness. But before a certain point they dont even have that.

....... wrote: »

Christ.

I was simply pointing out that born people have a lot of other things that fetuses dont have. And why do they have them? Because they are conscious beings who have lived in the world.

Its getting VERY tedious joining the most minor of dots for you.

Now make your argument as you have been asked to do several times.

Now make your argument please.

....... · 19-06-2019 04:53PM

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

...then I will gracefully concede the debate.

Fair enough - I take it you have now conceded?

SusieBlue · 19-06-2019 04:53PM

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Why did the poster I quoted list them as qualities of "personhood" as he calls it then? What relevance has it to the abortion argument? None. I don't believe possessing or lacking any of those properties or qualities listed makes anyone fair game for murder. And you can't prove me wrong, so you resort to posts like above "you're not the first, that has been answered, bla bla bla" = "I've lost the argument".

The woman carrying the baby is a living citizen with full human rights. She has a family, friends, hopes, dreams, and aspirations. She is a person just like you or me.

A fetus has none of these things. I mean yes, some day it might. But before 12 weeks it has absolutely no common attributes with an actual person bar dna.

Why should a pre 12 week gestated fetus be given an EQUAL right to life as this woman? Why should this fetus be given any rights at all at the expense of this woman's bodily autonomy?
Because you say so? Because you believe its the right thing to do? You'll have to do better than that.

cj maxx · 19-06-2019 04:57PM

54&56 wrote: »

Really very sad for the parents.

I have direct experience of a baby being born with Triosomy 13 over 20 years ago. It was badly deformed and lived for less than a month. Today, if I was faced with the choice facing these parents I'd make exactly the same decision they did.

Giving birth to a such a deformed and/or non viable baby is a nightmare I wouldn't wish any parent or newborn child to have to endure.

The problem here is protocol abs process which need to be improved to minimise a repeat happening again but regardless of how good the process or protocol human error in medicine/healthcare will always occur whether it is an early stage foetus or an 80 year old pensioner.

I’m sorry for your loss

pinkyeye · 19-06-2019 07:56PM

So this has turned into another abortion debate. It's over lads, why are we still debating it.

Harvey Weinstein · 20-06-2019 10:39PM

If this kind of thing becomes normalised there might be a lot more healthy babies aborted at 15 weeks. Horrible logic but logical nonetheless.

Freedom to choose indeed...

20-06-2019 10:54PM

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

If this kind of thing becomes normalised there might be a lot more healthy babies aborted at 15 weeks. Horrible logic but logical nonetheless.

Freedom to choose indeed...

Simple solution to this and the other poor working conditions mentioned in the newspaper articles about the committee investigation into bogus self employment, stronger labour laws favoring workers and union recognition.
Unfortunately a lot of pro lifers tend to be very anti worker and pro business, so don't expect to see them campaign for these anytime soon.

The Rapture · 21-06-2019 07:54PM

This whole thing is a complete non-story. The couple can still have more children.

Pre-repeal they may have chosen to go to the UK anyway. I take they were made aware of the small risk of false positives.
Why would you cry for this feotus any more than 5,000+ who will be aborted this year ?
Pro-lifers are only using this case to refight the referendum.

volchitsa · 21-06-2019 09:03PM

The Rapture wrote: »

This whole thing is a complete non-story. The couple can still have more children.

You're clearly male, and almost certainly childless - a pregnancy, even only 15 weeks, is already a huge mental and physical investment on the part of the woman. 'Sure they can just have another one" is the traditional view of women as mere breeders, who will gestate as often as the men around her have decided, as though the effort is takes from her were unimportant.

And that's assuming that you are correct that the couple are young enough and fertile enough to have more children.

Pre-repeal they may have chosen to go to the UK anyway. I take they were made aware of the small risk of false positives.
Why would you cry for this feotus any more than 5,000+ who will be aborted this year ?
Pro-lifers are only using this case to refight the referendum.

Of course they could have gone to the Uk before the referendum, and we would almost certainly never have heard if something had gone wrong, I mean, who would they have complained to, since the British health service in the Liverpool Women's Hospital or wherever was providing them with a service they weren't entitled to as non UK taxpayers?

But IMO it's not about "sorrow" for the fetus, which is aware of nothing, it's about the couple and their plans for a family being thwarted, as I said above.
Just as I might feel sorry for a couple who never managed to get pregnant in the first place - there never was a fetus, but that's irrelevant, because that's not the issue.

And yes of course prolifers are dying to exploit this sad incident for their own agenda. Doesn't make any possible negligence on the part of the hospital any more acceptable though.

nozzferrahhtoo · 24-06-2019 02:19PM

....... wrote: »

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

Awwww shucks

Ok allow 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. Just as an unconscious person in a comatose state will slowly regain consciousness.

Bad comparison there. In the former the faculty itself is entirely absent. In the latter the faculty exists but is compromised. The difference between entirely absent, and malfunctioning, is not a small difference. You do not have more rights awake than asleep for example. That would be ludicrous.

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Or does your argument only apply to life that has not previously been conscious, and if so why?

Set Theory maybe? If it has never attained that faculty ever, then it is in the same set as everything else that has never attained that faculty ever. Such as a rock for example.

The "if so why?" you ask therefore gets instantly reversed. Why do you feel POTENTIAL consciousness should hold any moral or ethical concern for us. If I create a fully sentient General Artificial Intelligence that will be every bit as conscious and sentient as you are.... but then just before I turn it on I dismantle it and make toasters...... why might we have to consider that a moral or ethical issue?

How does the arithmetic of potentials even work? After all we can nearly all potentially have children whenever we want. Many of us choose not to. Why no concern for the millions of potentials that have not been realised through such choices or through contraception etc etc?

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

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

The error is alas yours but it is an easily fixed linguistic one. You are mistaking.... or rather conflating.... the state of BEING conscious in a given moment with the faculty OF consciousness in and of itself.

It is not that a fetus or a coma patient or someone asleep is conscious or not conscious. It is that 2 of them have, and one of them ENTIRELY lacks, the very faculty of consciousness itself.

It is like we are comparing a radio tower that is built with one that has not yet been built..... while you are comparing two that have been built.... one of which is switched on and the other switched off. And as such we are alas talking past each other.

theological · 24-06-2019 06:57PM

The Rapture wrote: »

This whole thing is a complete non-story. The couple can still have more children.

Pre-repeal they may have chosen to go to the UK anyway. I take they were made aware of the small risk of false positives.
Why would you cry for this feotus any more than 5,000+ who will be aborted this year ?
Pro-lifers are only using this case to refight the referendum.

I think you're missing the point. I think there's right to be concern over mistakes like these if they end in the death of a human life.

Pro-life views won't go away because of the referendum and people have every right to continue questioning the ethics of abortion in a free society.

People still have the liberty to raise questions over the destruction of human life. The word foetus in Latin is young one it basically just means an unborn child. A referendum doesn't nullify the truth. I'd appreciate the pro-choice side more if they were honest and argued that killing an unborn child is justifiable in certain circumstances rather than trying to dehumanise the unborn.

It is similar to how people question the death penalty in the US in respect to mistakes that are made in court.

If you don't find it concerning that's entirely up to you.

Outlaw Pete · 24-06-2019 07:56PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Awwww shucks Ok allow me..

/Cringe

It is like we are comparing a radio tower....

Your argument has been rebutted multiple times at this stage. It's senseless.

Is it that prochoicers keep backslapping your posts (or PMing you - as you posted elsewhere) that has resulted in you incorrectly thinking it has merit, is that it? Is it a numbers thing? It must be, as it is absurd that we as a society should look on killing developing first trimester babies in the womb with no more regard for them than had we just broken a rock.

Boards just has a very very high percentage of liberals and they want something to hang their hat on when it comes to justifying their endorsement of the killing of developing human beings. Evidenced by (as you've just seen) a poster delegating replies to you. I guess they think your ability to keep posting longwinded needlessly convoluted irrelevant walls of text is somehow a coherent argument. I assure you, it's not. Well, not to anyone with any regard for commonsense at least.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Why should a pre 12 week gestated fetus be given an EQUAL right to life as this woman?

Because it's the only life they have and are ever likely to have. Simple as that.

Why should this fetus be given any rights at all at the expense of this woman's bodily autonomy?

If the 'expense' you're alluding to is a risk to life, well then they shouldn't, which is why most people who would identify as prolife have no issue with abortions carried out under those particular circumstances and a few other ones also.

Because you say so? Because you believe its the right thing to do?

No, because it's the only life they have and are ever likely to have.

Again, here is ultrasound footage of a developing human being who is very much alive and to suggest what is seen below is just autonomic movement from a 'blob of biological human shaped matter' (or a 'zygote' at ten weeks - in the case of your good self) is about a ridiculous a view as it is for someone to say that we live on a flat Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGqJZH9RrRo

amcalester · 24-06-2019 08:01PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

/Cringe

Your argument has been rebutted multiple times at this stage. It's senseless.

Is it that prochoicers keep backslapping your posts (or PMing you - as you posted elsewhere) that has resulted in you incorrectly thinking it has merit, is that it? Is it a numbers thing? It must be, as it is absurd that we as a society should look on killing developing first trimester babies in the womb with no more regard for them than had we just broken a rock.

Boards just has a very very high percentage of liberals and they want something to hang their hat on when it comes to justifying the endorsement of the killing developing human beings. Evidenced by (as you've just seen) a poster delegating replies to you. I guess they think your ability to keep posting longwinded needlessly convoluted irrelevant walls of text is someone a coherent argument. I assure you, it's not. Well, not to anyone with any regard for commonsense at least.

Because it's the only life they have and are ever likely to have. Simple as that.

If the 'expense' you're alluding to is a risk to life, well then they shouldn't, which is why most people who would identify as prolife have no issue with abortions carried out under those particular circumstances and a few other ones also.

No, because it's the only life they have and are ever likely to have.

Again, here is ultrasound footage of a developing human being who is very much alive and to suggest what is seen below is just autonomic movement from a blob of biological human shaped matter (or a zygote in the case of your good self) is about a ridiculous a view at it is for someone to say that we live on a flat Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGqJZH9RrRo

Considering the winning margin it’s not just boards that has a high number of liberals.

Loafing Oaf · 24-06-2019 08:09PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

it is absurd that we as a society should look on killing developing first trimester babies in the womb with no more regard for them than had we just broken a rock.

Absurd but true apparently...

Plumbthedepths · 24-06-2019 08:10PM

theological wrote:

Pro-life views won't go away because of the referendum and people have every right to continue questioning the ethics of abortion in a free society.

By all means question, have your views as is your right, but in the grand scheme of things redundant as women now have the right to decide whether they wish to be pregnant or not for whatever reason.

Outlaw Pete · 24-06-2019 08:12PM

pinkyeye wrote: »

So this has turned into another abortion debate.

The main reason I haven't posted on this thread to any great is so as not to turn it into yet another abortion debate thread, there's enough of them, but when I see others doing just that, and posting the usual drivel, it's kinda hard to sit back and say nowt.

It's over lads, why are we still debating it.

Abortion has (essentially at least) been legal in the UK, America (and many other parts of the world of course) for many years and yet the abortion debate has gone on in those countries despite that. Hell, if anything it has been more prevalent and so, there's no reason Ireland should be any different.

I suspect abortion will always be a contentious issue and legislation may change multiple times over the years, if other countries are anything to go by, which is another reason the debate will likely continue.

Either way, just because something is legal does not automatically make it either ethical or moral.

Plumbthedepths · 24-06-2019 08:31PM

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Either way, just because something is legal does not automatically make it either ethical or moral.

In your opinion, personally ethics or morality has nothing to do with it.

Loafing Oaf · 24-06-2019 08:32PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I suspect abortion will always be a contentious issue and legislation may change multiple times over the years, if other countries are anything to go by,

Which other countries?

theological · 24-06-2019 08:53PM

pinkyeye wrote: »

So this has turned into another abortion debate. It's over lads, why are we still debating it.

This point is poignant. Irish culture seems to prefer the hive mind to out of the box or more maverick thinking.

Conversations are over just because the establishment declares them to be over.

Those on the more liberal and progressive side of this and a whole host of other issues don't seem to understand that this is the same kind of thinking that the conservative Catholic Ireland used to keep its orthodoxy in place.

Don't question. Know your place. Why are you contradicting us? Don't you see we control the discourse?

Surely you can see this is an unhealthy way to engage with thinking. Truth be told I'm a bit of a contrarian these days. I like exploring unpopular arguments precisely because they aren't popular. It's almost the draw to them. Often I find that they are more rational than what is popular on examination.

Outlaw Pete · 24-06-2019 09:34PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

In your opinion, personally ethics or morality has nothing to do with it.

Personal and moral ethics have everything to do with it as they are how humanity determines what is right and wrong and indeed are what generally inform the way in which a person votes (with regards to if something should or should not be legal).

Someone who believes abortion is moral and ethical would unlikely have changed their mind had the vote gone the other way and so I'm bemused when I read people suggesting that because it went this way, prolifers should now just shut up about it an accept the result, as if it was football match or something.

I'd suggest that anyone that was prolife before the referendum but subsequently changed their minds because of the outcome of it, can't have had too much ethical and moral regard for developing first trimester babies to begin with.

Plumbthedepths · 24-06-2019 09:42PM

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Personal and moral ethics have everything to do with it as they are how humanity determines what is right and wrong and indeed are what generally inform the way in which a person votes (with regards to if something should or should not be legal).

Not everyone shares the same morals or ethnics hence why law takes precedence.

Plumbthedepths · 24-06-2019 09:43PM

Outlaw Pete wrote:

I'd suggest that anyone that was prolife before the referendum but subsequently changed their minds because of the outcome of it, can't have had too much ethical and moral regard for developing first trimester 'foetus' to begin with.

I get the emotive use of the word baby but I took the time to insert the correct term.

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Comments