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
13567…20

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    pinkyeye wrote: »
    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??

    Basically the vote was to remove any constitutional rights for a fetus inside the mother's womb up to the time of birth. That's why I voted no. If it had retained some rights I would have voted yes. It left the door wide open for the government to make any law it liked, from a complete ban to aborting healthy babies hours before birth.

    The lesson is to learn what you are actually voting for.


  • Options
    #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Akrasia wrote: »
    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

    Why could we not have put this in the constitution like other human rights?


  • Options
    #64
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Why could we not have put this in the constitution like other human rights?

    How does a person who is raped have their right to an abortion, then?

    People need to realise that the 12 weeks thing was to allow people who became pregnant via rape to have a termination without having to go through the trauma of their attack all over again.

    You can't put a provision for something like this in the constitution because then it would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in court.

    Besides, why don't people just mind their own business? If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one.

    People whip themselves into a frenzy thinking this vote forces abortion on people. It doesn't. Don't have one if you don't want one but don't sneer at women who do decide to have one for whatever reason they choose.


  • Options
    #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Faugheen wrote: »
    How does a person who is raped have their right to an abortion, then?

    People need to realise that the 12 weeks thing was to allow people who became pregnant via rape to have a termination without having to go through the trauma of their attack all over again.

    You can't put a provision for something like this in the constitution because then it would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in court.

    Besides, why don't people just mind their own business? If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one.

    People whip themselves into a frenzy thinking this vote forces abortion on people. It doesn't. Don't have one if you don't want one but don't sneer at women who do decide to have one for whatever reason they choose.

    None of this has anything to do with what I said.


  • Options
    #66
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,076 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Basically the vote was to remove any constitutional rights for a fetus inside the mother's womb up to the time of birth. That's why I voted no. If it had retained some rights I would have voted yes. It left the door wide open for the government to make any law it liked, from a complete ban to aborting healthy babies hours before birth.

    The lesson is to learn what you are actually voting for.

    Yes because aborting healthy babies hours before birth is actually going to happen . How exactly do you abort a baby hours before birth then ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Yes because aborting healthy babies hours before birth is actually going to happen . How exactly do you abort a baby hours before birth then ?

    That's what they said in 30s Germany. In Stalinist Russia. And if we are to believe CNN in Trump's America. Do you believe an unborn child should have no rights at all? Because that's what our constitution says.

    I am sure its not difficult technically to abort a 9 month unborn baby.

    There is nothing to stop a future government making abortion completely illegal. Are you fine with that?


  • Options
    #68
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Deleted User wrote:
    The lesson is to learn what you are actually voting for.


    Knew exactly what I voted for , move on.


  • Options
    #69
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    splinter65 wrote: »
    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.

    It doesn't have to go away. We can continue to have votes on it all you want. If the vote went the other way, I certainly wouldn't have given up.

    No side is going to meet in the middle. The them and us divide is far too deep.

    But for as long as there are votes I will always go for the option that offers choice to women.


  • Options
    #70
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,076 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    That's what they said in 30s Germany. In Stalinist Russia. And if we are to believe CNN in Trump's America.

    There is nothing to stop a future government making abortion completely illegal. Are you fine with that?

    No . I am not fine with that but its not even a reality so why even mention it
    If we get to have a Stalin type government I can start worrying then


  • Options
    #71
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    No . I am not fine with that but its not even a reality so why even mention it
    If we get to have a Stalin type government I can start worrying then

    Well you would have put the conditions in place to make it possible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Knew exactly what I voted for , move on.

    You made it easier to have a complete ban on abortion. Good for you.


  • Options
    #73
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well you would have put the conditions in place to make it possible.

    If we have a stalin type government, abortion really will be the least of my worries.


  • Options
    #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    If we have a stalin type government, abortion really will be the least of my worries.

    That's why we have a constitution, to prevent that kind of thing


  • Options
    #75
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It surprised me at the time and still does the level of ignorance shown by both sides of the abortion debate. Bored with this now.


  • Options
    #76
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It surprised me at the time and still does the level of ignorance shown by both sides of the abortion debate.

    What like hysterical hypothetical nonsense? The fear of future Stalin type governments being the reason you voted no? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #77
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Deleted User wrote:
    You made it easier to have a complete ban on abortion. Good for you.


    You clearly have no idea where Ireland as a society is now. A ban will not happen in my lifetime , although you are free to enjoy your delusion. ;-)


  • Options
    #78
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,306 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You made it easier to have a complete ban on abortion. Good for you.

    This is fine - if such an unlikely throwback government is voted in by the people then it's perfectly ok that they legislate this way.

    For many of us the most important part of the vote was getting the reference to abortion out of the constitution. It's a complex multi-layered issue and it doesn't really fit the constitution which is really just a document of soundbites or summations. The abortion issue belongs in legislation and legislation can be changed more quickly as we know.


  • Options
    #79
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    None of this has anything to do with what I said.

    You're talking about putting definitions and other sh*te in our constitution, and I'm telling you why you can't.

    As for your Stalin government nonsense...


  • Options
    #80
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    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.
    If the foetus has "a right to life", then it overrides the mothers right to life.


  • Options
    #81
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,076 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Well you would have put the conditions in place to make it possible.

    You still haven’t answered my question . How exactly do you abort a full term baby hours before birth ? Are you actually talking about induction then murder ? Because you do know it is not even a reality don’t you . Its not going to happen


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Basically the vote was to remove any constitutional rights for a fetus inside the mother's womb up to the time of birth. That's why I voted no. If it had retained some rights I would have voted yes. It left the door wide open for the government to make any law it liked, from a complete ban to aborting healthy babies hours before birth.

    The lesson is to learn what you are actually voting for.


    you seem to be presuming that your interpretation and fears are somehow superior to the interpretation of anyone who voted against you.

    it doesnt matter, because 2:1, but it may be worth considering that people just knew what they wanted and voted for it.


  • Options
    #83
    shesty
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,894 Mod ✭✭✭✭shesty


    "The foetus"."The mother"
    Actual people....loads of grey areas.If it was as black and white as you seem to be thinking it is, life would be so much easier...


  • Options
    #84
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    I'm curious to find out from pro abortion people, when exactly is it ok to allow abortion?

    Is it 12 weeks? If so what about 12 weeks and one day?

    Is it anytime until birth? If so, why would it not be acceptable to "abort" a premature baby?

    I'm not talking about legality,but where does your moral compass point?

    When is a baby a baby in your opinion?


  • Options
    #85
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Ironicname wrote:
    I'm curious to find out from pro abortion people, when exactly is it ok to allow abortion?


    Just look up the present legislation, that answers your question.


  • Options
    #86
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Ironicname wrote: »
    I'm curious to find out from pro abortion people, when exactly is it ok to allow abortion?

    Is it 12 weeks? If so what about 12 weeks and one day?

    Is it anytime until birth? If so, why would it not be acceptable to "abort" a premature baby?

    I'm not talking about legality,but where does your moral compass point?

    When is a baby a baby in your opinion?

    Yawn.

    Been there, done that, took pictures, kept the receipts.

    And piss off with the 'pro-abortion' nonsense. Just because I'm pro-choice does not mean I like abortions.


  • Options
    #87
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Knew exactly what I voted for , move on.

    This “move on” business smacks of such desperation from the pro abortion people.
    What specifically do you mean when you say “move on”?
    You know you sound like a parent who has told a child that they can’t go to the circus and that there will be no more discussion about it?
    Why do you think you can decide that a conversation is over?


  • Options
    #88
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Ironicname wrote: »
    I'm curious to find out from pro abortion people, when exactly is it ok to allow abortion?

    Is it 12 weeks? If so what about 12 weeks and one day?

    Is it anytime until birth? If so, why would it not be acceptable to "abort" a premature baby?

    I'm not talking about legality,but where does your moral compass point?

    When is a baby a baby in your opinion?

    If you get an answer to that question would you mind alerting me? 30 years I’ve never had an answer. Thanks.


  • Options
    #89
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    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.)

    No


  • Options
    #90
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,700 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    n97 mini wrote: »
    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.

    You may not remember does not mean you were not aware. A smiling face looking up at you a cry if it is hungry or wet. I don't remember those things but they happened was I not sentient. My memory is crap so there is a lot i have not remembered


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    splinter65 wrote: »
    This “move on” business smacks of such desperation from the pro abortion people.
    What specifically do you mean when you say “move on”?
    You know you sound like a parent who has told a child that they can’t go to the circus and that there will be no more discussion about it?
    Why do you think you can decide that a conversation is over?

    Desperation? The only desperation I see is those that have lost control of women and don't like it.


Advertisement