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
24567…20

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Options
    #33
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #36
    mickuhaha
    Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Jump_In_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    pinkyeye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭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??


  • Options
    #41
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,980 Mod ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,209 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Options
    #45
    Donnielighto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    PhoenixParker
    Registered Users Posts: 2,671 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    Donnielighto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    Donnielighto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #49
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Donnielighto wrote: »
    That's a no to the OP so?

    Sure is


  • Options
    #50
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #51
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    I campaigned and voted to repeal the 8th. I was fully aware what that entailed.

    I personally do not like abortion but I'm a man I will never face an unwanted pregnancy and tbh I shouldn't have any power over what a women deems is right for her own body. If that woman disagrees with abortion then she can choose to keep the foetus, bring it to term and have the baby.

    As for the foetus once the pregnancy passes 12 weeks then it is protected unless there is serious consequences for the womans health or the foetus is not viable outside the womb due to a FFA.


  • Options
    #53
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Anyone who still argues that women shouldn't be allowed to seek a termination in this country wants to control them.

    If you claim you don't want to control women, then you wouldn't raise these 'concerns' when the argument has been done to death.


  • Options
    #54
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,119 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    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.

    Do you agree with abortion in certain instances?

    If so, then is it just the ones that you approve of?

    What gives you, or anyone else, this authority?


  • Options
    #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Donnielighto wrote: »
    If you start using those lines of logic it can go down dark places.

    like what
    We need to admit the cognitive dissonance on this one and just face up that we are ending life,


    i dont ever remember anyone saying otherwise at any stage.

    it's not a bad thing as the life hasn't done anything yet

    thats not really the argumentand its neither a good nor a bad thing, its just a thing
    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.

    except the one put forward repeatedly in the thread, which you are declining to address?



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


    im not sure youve earned the pandering tone tbh, maybe if you bravely faced the actual argument instead of defining it vaguely/insensibly as suited you, you could adopt such a position of stoic leadership (usually done from the front fyi, not a year behind)


  • Options
    #56
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    No.


  • Options
    #57
    mickuhaha
    Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭mickuhaha


    Just wanted to respond to the sentiment in the last few posts. The idea of women need abortion or we are trying to control them is stupid in my opinion. That's why we have a governing society. It is meant to create rules that everyone is expected to follow , even if you dislike them. That is a form of control. The idea of the rules is that society is improved as a result for the population. That brings me to my second point. Men can have a choice in relation to the rules in that society. In this case you don't need to be a woman to understand the situation of abortion .(most) humans have empathy and have the ability to put ourselves in others shoes.


  • Options
    #58
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,567 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    I think the question should be 'When should the foetus have a right to life?'

    Vast majority who are in favour of legalised abortion would still be against abortions in the 38th week, for example.

    There are some people who are either for or against it without any exceptions obviously, but my guess is that most people change their minds somewhere between weeks 10 and 24, and their reasoning is based on either sentience or viability outside the womb.

    I posted this elsewhere a few months ago, but future medical advancements may mean that a foetus can be removed from the womb at an early stage (say week 6) but carried to term in an artificial womb.

    I think a development like that will bring about another stage in the abortion debate, as, to a certain extent, it will negate the 'my body my choice' argument, as a termination of the pregnancy at week 10 for example, doesn't have to mean the death of the foetus.


  • Options
    #59
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,293 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    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.

    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.)

    Yet that's exactly what you're going to achieve so why?


  • Options
    #60
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Yet that's exactly what you're going to achieve so why?

    You do know that the argument is never ever going to go away?
    And that as medical science in the field of neonatal medicine advances at the rate it is the argument will get tougher and tougher?
    I can’t understand why the repeal people thought that was the end of it.
    When repeal lost in 83 that wasn’t the end of it either.
    Roe vs Wade has never been over.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    This fundamentally breaks down to the concept of personhood. Is a foetus a person, what makes a person a person, when does a person stop being a person.

    We used to define alive as a function of when a heart is still beating, but with artificial respiration we can keep people ‘alive’ for years even if their brain is no longer functioning on any cognitive capacity. So we choose to define death differently so we can allow people to pass on when their personhood is gone

    It’s extremely difficult to argue that an early stage embryo or foetus bears the characteristics to qualify as a person. This is why pro life philosophers talk about them as potential persons and then try to justify giving potential persons an equal right to life as an actual person. This is a silly argument.

    It is also difficult to argue that a late stage foetus isn’t a person, especially after the point where they could survive outside of the womb without intensive neonatal incubation causing long term developmental damage.

    Because the personhood status is a grey area, the solution needs to be a compromise which is what most civilized countries have arrived at. Free access to abortion at the earliest stages of pregnancy with more restrictions as the foetus becomes viable while preserving the pregnant woman’s right to life as superseding the foetus


Advertisement