Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should a foetus have the right to life?

Options
  • 04-08-2019 5:21pm
    #1
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭


    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.)


«134567…20

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,418 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3
    Signore Fancy Pants
    Registered Users Posts: 3,685 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #5
    Atoms for Peace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Atoms for Peace


    In short, no.


  • Options
    #6
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,418 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Er what?
    Asked & answered last year I believe.


  • Options
    #8
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #9
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #10
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,147 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #11
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #13
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #14
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,418 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #15
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #16
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #17
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #18
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #19
    Signore Fancy Pants
    Registered Users Posts: 3,685 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #20
    Donnielighto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭Donnielighto


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

    Are pro choicers lobbying?


  • Options
    #21
    Donnielighto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭Donnielighto


    You can have inconsistent rights btw then primacy takes effect.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Donnielighto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #23
    Ursus Horribilis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #24
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,457 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #25
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


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


  • Options
    #26
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,322 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #27
    mickuhaha
    Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #28
    Raconteuse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #29
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,519 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Moved from AH > CA


  • Options
    #30
    misterme123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


Advertisement