@Onion Knight: 12 week foetus is the size of a lime.

@Glen Quagmire: It’s partly a matter of what the electorate might be willing to accept.

12 weeks partially and seriously damages the 8th Amendment.

That said, Savita Halapannavar died when her foetus was 17 weeks old.

@Joe: That’s called birth.

@Joe: birth, induced or otherwise, applies at that point.

@Joe: Can you show us where a pregnant woman will get a medical professional to remove her foetus at 39 weeks ? Oh wait…that would be called birth..

@David Murphey: a lime? Not a plum? Or a small lemon? Or quinces?

@Francis Mc Carthy:

So what, it’s just a foetus. Have you not heard of live birth abortions?

@Caitlin Maslin McDonald:

But it’s not full gestation, it is still a foetus.

@Tony Daly: can we please not let this woman rest? Her name has been used for this agenda since day one ..

@Suzie Sunshine: she is resting for eternity.

@Joe: “Have you not heard of live birth abortions” At 39 weeks ? Source Joe ? Yikes!

Ignore ‘joe’, its that kind of ridiculous comment thats going to lose the pro birth side their argument.

@Joe: a foetus is viable from 32 weeks. And gestation is 37-42 weeks in medical terms so 37 plus is child birth you sanctamonous ass.

@David Murphey: your point?

@Tony Daly: Caitlin and tony, sense the sarcasm.

@Francis Mc Carthy:

I did not put both together. I posed the question, “why not 39 weeks?” It is simply a foetus. There are procedures that involve partial birth abortions so it is technically possible.

There is no restriction in Canada up until birth so potentially it could be done at 40 weeks. Morally or ethically there should be no problem.

@Joe: you posed a ridiculous question, that’s the issue. The type of question that will do you no favours in any upcoming debate on the issue.

@The Risen:

You must be moving in those liberal circles again. Why should there be a problem?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488493/EXCLUSIVE-MP-outrage-at-39-week-abortion

@David Murphey: except it’s not a lime… it’s a baby

Quagnire, it is effectively 22 weeks anyhow if one attempts to define “socio-economic reasons” which can cover basically anyone from the poor farmer, the asset rich bussiness people…to the majority on the average basic wage with a mortgage or car loan.

@John Mullins:

Cheers for the name calling John.

Why is it morally or ethically different?

It shouldn’t matter what stage the foetus is at, if it is acceptable at 12 weeks it should be acceptable at 39 weeks. There have been babies born significantly earlier than 32 weeks and survived.

@Francis Mc Carthy:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488493/EXCLUSIVE-MP-outrage-at-39-week-abortion

@Joe: So by that criterion what would be the problem with a little post-birth abortion aka infanticide? No really, I’d like to know your profound moral reasoning on this point, where a human automagically becomes worthy of the right to life simply by passing down the birth canal.

@Lorraine Boland: its a foetus the size of a lime… Not a baby.

@Joe: LOL! You had to go to a foreign newspaper, the daily bloody express no less, relating to a foreign case and foreign politicians to make your non-point?

Keep up the bad work ‘joe’, keep it up all the way to the referendum.

Good man.

@Dell: a rose by any other name…

@Francis Mc Carthy: I would imagine that Joe was being sarcastic. . I’m sure he’s well aware if what happens at 39 weeks and ye all fell for it !

@Joe: sorry Joe, you’re too effective at sarcasm! Went right by me!

@Squarepeg01:

Peter Singer has advocated the very thing you mention. It is avaiable in Holland and Belgium where there is a case of severe disability. Who is to say that won’t change to broaden the reasons?

@The Risen:

Do they have them in Ireland?

http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/it-happened-me-i-had-abortion-38

Can you provide a source that it is done at 39 weeks in Canada ?

Don’t even bother looking ,Joe,because they don’t do it..And even with “no restrictions” there is still less late-term abortions than the UK or the US..

Always here to provide a few pesky facts..

@Suzie Sunshine: Why should we let him get away with his BS ?

@The Risen:

I’m not sure there are sufficient number of liberal circles to carry a referendum.

@Francis Mc Carthy:

Did you not read my post, I said it was possible. Would you agree it is possible?

Is there any ethical impediment to destroying a 39 week foetus to that of a 24 week foetus? It is still the same being with a transitivity of identity.

@Francis Mc Carthy:

What is the ethical and moral difference Francis?

@Joe: LOL! So you back up your daily express link with a link to an anonymous source.

Like I said, keep up the bad work all the way to the referendum.

Any links to Iona you’d like to share?

@The Risen:

Can you consult your liberal circles and answer the question regarding the ethical difference.

@Joe: once a foetus becomes viable it’s a baby (approx 24 week), that’s the difference.

@Joe: your arguments are just reductive.

@Joe: To define what constitutes where human life begins we must look to where it ends. The definition of death is not medically disputed. It’s occurs when brainwave (EEG) activity ceases and cannot be reversed . A foetus brain until about 24 weeks exhibits electrical activity which can cause involuntary reflexes. It’s not until about 24/25 weeks that sustained EEG activity kicks in . As EEG activity didn’t exist until then it had been technically brain dead. The threshold for the medical definition of “being alive” simply hadn’t ever been reached in the first place. Sure, from conception it has the potential to become a self aware fully formed human being but until certain conditions are met it’s only that… potential.

@Joe: ever hear of or read the submissions on gradualism to the Citizens Assembly.

You ought properly to inform yourself if you wish seriously to engage with this subject.

@Glen Quagmire: it is for the poor (socioeconomic reasons they said) not the rich.
Abortion up to 40 weeks if you’re disabled… progress eh …

@Tony Daly: Can you imagine if Joe put in submissions to the Citizens Assembly ? Why doesn’t he stick to the actual facts where the majority (93%) of abortions of unwanted pregnancies,are carried out in the first trimester…You do get very tired of their nonsense..well I do anyway..yawn..oops! soz..

@Karen Wellington:

Well we are getting somewhere, it is a baby at 24 weeks. What magic occurs between week 23 and week 24?

The argument [is] simple, is the foetus the same human being at 22 weeks as it is at 39?

It is ‘viable’ between the weeks of 22 to 24 weeks and while it is in the woman’s womb,it is a foetus..

@Tony Daly:

Is it human, is it alive and is it developing?

Do you know of the gradualism from a baby to an adult?

I don’y need the CA to declare at what point a human being has value dependent on size and location. It is pretty fundamental biology.

@Francis Mc Carthy:

It is viable at 12 weeks if it is left unmolested.

@Joe: it is not human life, it is not a human being and it does not have human personhood in a legal sense until it is born. It is called a foetus.

There is an ethical theory that as a foetus develops and approximates more and more closely to a human being at the end stage of pregnancy the entity may be deserving of limited legal protection but certainly not parity with a real human being, a real live and connected pregnant woman. It is not a baby. It is a foetus.

@Onion Knight: only allowed one step unfortunately. Unless a referendum every year.

@Joe: the magic of brain function.

@Paddy Ryan:

Cheers Paddy, At least a genuine attempt at defining the ethical difference, however I disagree, human life begins at conception.

“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. THe result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuos whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”
Editorial
“A New Ethic for Medicine and Society”
California Medicine, September 1970

“We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life.”

Ann Furedi. Head of BPAS

@Karen Wellington:
So it is brain function that is the determining factor? Is there a level of brain function that is significant?

@Tony Daly:

I don’t really care what noun you use to describe the unborn, but almost all embryologists would disagree about it not being a human being. Personhood, however, is a philosophical concept.

@Lorraine Boland: do you call caterpillars butterflies? No, because they’re not.

@Joe: yes, and then no. Does that answer all your questions?

@Joe: “I don’t really care what noun you use to describe the unborn,”

Do you describe yourself as the undead?

@Francis Mc Carthy:

You need the Citizens Assembly to decide moral issues for you Francis?

@Karen Wellington:

Thanks Karen.

So brain activity begins at 8 weeks, would you reconsider your position on that basis?

@Joe: personhood is a legal concept and a foetus is not a person.

It is conceptually wring to relegate pregnant women who are real persons, to parity with a non person.

“Unborn” is a negative attribute. It confuses and is self contradictory. It is a contrived nonsense born of Roman Catholic religious dogma.

@Joe: a human being is also a legal concept. Human rights are recognised in the case of human beings who are real, live and born beings of the human genus.

@Joe: no.

@Joe: Using the definition from 1970 (!?!) of life consisting of “a beating heart and a genetic system ” organ procurement from brain dead donors (the preferred donors) would be impossible until after cardiac death had occurred not to mention that an heart recipient would technically cease to exist as a person (no heartbeat ) as organs were being swapped out. There’s absolutely no mental gymnastics involved in recognising if brain wave activity exists nor are there any required as to if they had been present or not in the first place.Its binary. Brainwave activity either existed or it didn’t exist. And if it never existed then the body was never alive.

@The Risen:

Is there a continuity of cell activity from living to dead Risen?

Is there a continuity of cell activity from blastocyst to death?

If you answer those questions honestly perhaps you might answer your own question.

@Joe: debating with you akin peeling one own eyeballs. If you have nothing of value to add to either side why are you even here?

@Karen Wellington:

So brain activity is not the magic you suggested and was possibly only a fig leaf. So why mention brain function at all?

@Paddy Ryan:

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

Is a blastocyst living, is it human and is it self directing?

@Joe:
Because that would be murder

@Karen Wellington:

I am just trying to establish what you consider a human life to be and why it is okay to kill it at a particular stage but not another. You suggested some magic happened at 24 weeks but you have been unable to sustain that.

@marg fitzgerald:

What would be murder Marg?

@Joe: there’s nothing wrong with the point I made and I stand by it. The problem is your Blanton the lie, which don’t do much to help to anti-choice agreement. Brain function begins at approximately 24 when the brain has fully formed, if you’re going lie you may as well say the zygote has full brain function. My eyes hurt.

@Karen Wellington: blatant*

@Joe: It is not ‘viable’ at 12 weeks as it cannot survive outside the woman’s womb..and it doesn’t really matter when you say ‘left unmolested’ ..Stick to the bloody facts and not this usual nonsense that you have a habit of coming out with..

@Joe: Any time between 37 weeks and 42 weeks is considered full gestation. 37 weeks is full term

@Karen Wellington: Joe will start throwing out all sorts of hogwash which will have absolutely nothing to do with the actual procedure…has he mentioned throwing the ‘baby’ out onto the motorway yet ?

@Karen Wellington:

It is not very nice to accuse someone of lying. Sometimes we all make errors, that does not make them lies. Perhaps you might apologise.

“When viewed in this way, human life may be seen as a continuous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero (eight weeks gestation), until the occurrence of brain death.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4078859

On the basis of this evidence would you now reconsider your position?

@Anon12345:

Okay, I’ll go along with that. Most births happen at the 40 week gestation, would you accept that?

The point is moot really.

@Francis Mc Carthy:

Well if you don’t like that analogy Francis you might prefer the other one I posited at the same time, would you remove a premature baby from an incubator just because you owned the incubator? In is a test or morality and ethics, a thought experiment, like Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist.

So would you evict the baby from your incubator?

@Joe: no, I will not accept your lie/misinformation on the basis of one paper written 32 years ago. How long did it take you to find that one (and only) piece of evidence to support your nonsense. Might I suggest you look into the work of Dr. Micheal Gazzaniga or the RCOG’s ‘Fetal Awareness Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice’, or would actual information impair your ability to be reductive?

@Joe: your incubator analogy is ridiculous, unless it’s been surgically embedded into her abdomen you’re not drawing a parallel.

@Joe: Until brainwave (EEG) activity is established it’s no more alive than any other group of cells and really no more self directing then any other.If it implanted in a fallopian tube for example the only conversation would be about how to remove it as it wouldn’t have the potential to become a human. Would you consider a blastocyst a human in that scenario ? Until a certain threshold is passed and until certain conditions are met it only has potential…

@Tony Daly: ‘born’ – you added that bit yourself. Whether an unborn person has rights or not is exactly what’s under discussion.

Guys, can we get a petition together to have joe as the official spokesperson for the anti-choice side for the upcoming referendum??

@Karen Wellington:

Karen, I’m not sure if you picked up what I was saying correctly, the incubator analogy has nothing to do with anyone’s body. It is a piece of property.

@The Risen:

Anti to what choice Risen, so I can prepare?

@Paddy Ryan:

I think science proves you wrong Paddy. It is widely accepted that human life begins when two gametes become one blastocyst.

@Karen Wellington:

Do you not accept the findings of the paper Karen?

“FIRST TRIMESTER: BABY STARTS MOVING
A mere 16 days after conception, your fetus’s neural plate forms (think of it as the foundation of your baby’s brain and spinal cord). It grows longer and folds onto itself, until that fold morphs into a groove, and that groove turns into a tube — the neural tube. Once the neural tube closes, at around week 6 or week 7 of pregnancy, it curves and bulges into three sections, commonly known as the forebrain, midbrain and hindbrain. Just to the rear of the hindbrain sits the part that will soon turn into your baby’s spinal cord. Soon, these areas bubble into those five different regions of the brain that we’re most familiar with: the cerebrum, cerebellum, brain stem, pituitary gland and the hypothalamus. Of course, all of these fetal brain areas need more time to be fully up and running!”

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

@Joe: I’m not sure if you picked what I was saying, property has nothing what so ever, in any way shape or form to do with this issue. If you believe any aspect of pregnancy, termination, reproductive organs or reproductive right involves ‘property’ there’s something seriously wrong with you. If you don’t believe any of the afore mentioned then why bring it up? Just deflecting?

@Joe: that link supports my point, not yours…… did you even read it?

@Dave O Keeffe: No I don’t do that. I don’t think that is a very good analogy in any case as both the butterfly and the caterpillar are ‘alive’ and are just as important, in my opinion. Terminating the caterpillar means no butterfly.

I have thought seriously about this difficult issue. I understand and believe that the woman carrying the foetus/baby is most important. But I also feel that the foetus/baby is important. It’s not as cut and dried as some people wish to make it out to be.

I don’t think that anything I can say will change someone’s mind (and it’s not up to me to change people’s opinion).

@Dave O Keeffe:
However, whatever you wish to call the human being growing in a woman’s body, a foetus or a baby(let’s not get bogged down in that), it will become a person if it is not aborted (unless the foetus/baby has a serious medical condition that does not support life) and because of this it makes me feel uneasy that the chance for their life can just be taken away before it can have the opportunity to grow and become a separate person.

@Karen Wellington:

“@Joe: that link supports my point, not yours…… did you even read it?”

I asked you Karen, if the level of brain function mattered and yo said NO.

There is brain activity from 8 weeks and since you said the level of activity didn’t matter, I assumed you were as good as your word. Either you believe the level of brain activity matters, or it doesn’t, which is it.

Then you accuse me of lying.

You cannot pick and choose as you go along. You are being argumentative and point scoring instead of having a debate.

As for your comment about property, it appears you misunderstood my analogy. It was made in response to a point about a woman basically evicting a foetus from her body and let it live or die, it wasn’t about killing it.

So I posited the analogy, if you owned an incubator and a premature baby was placed in it, would you be morally right to evict that baby, to certain death, just because you owned the incubator?

@Joe: you’re a ridiculous joke, you really do bring down the quality of the comments by quite some way. Forming isn’t the same as functioning, an abortion is not an eviction, your posts have no value, I’m not going to keep replying to your trolling.

@Paddy Ryan:

Are you saying a blastocyst is not self directing?

@Karen Wellington:

It has been established that brain activity is present at eight weeks. Do you accept that?

You said that the level of brain activity is not important. Do you accept that?

If the level of activity is unimportant, as you said, why are you retreating from that stance?

@Joe: @Joe: From fertilisation to implantation technically a zygote can be considered “life” but its still technically no different to any other group of cells dividing and multiplying.  A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess the properties of human life but none would be considered a human being. Cell division occurs throughout the body every second but you’d not consider a group of them a human. It’s about potential and until sustained brainwave activity exists then unfortunately what you consider special is just another group of human cells doing what human cells do.

@Joe: Brain activity at eight weeks in a foetus is sporadic and is analogous to the brain activity displayed by clinically brain dead patients.

It is generally accepted that at around 23-24 weeks, when the foetus becomes viable outside the womb, the brain activity has normalised and mirrors that of a newborn.

@Paddy Ryan:

A blastocyst and zygote are different from kidney or liver cells and skin cells because they are self directing and totipotent and will differentiate. Without external manipulation the cells you mention don’t do that. The zygote also differs from the oocyte in that it has a full compliment of 46 chromosomes.

At least you were careful to establish brainwaves as a marker unlike Karen Wellington who cited brain function. However I believe that is irrelevant, it is a human being from conception and shouldn’t be killed on a whim.

@Malachi:

I accept that, I didn’t assert anything other than brain activity is present from eight weeks.

However, I don’t accept that the development of the brain is any more significant than any other organ. The zygote, from its creation is human, self directing and will develop into a full adult if left unmolested, I regard it as fully human, the same as a one day old baby and we have no right to kill it.

It is that basic idea of its humanity that informs my position and I have arrived at that from a so called ‘pro-choice’ position at one time.

As a society we can democratically decide, if permitted to vote, on the extent to which abortion should be available or restricted. That is the policy part.

The bizarre dimension of the 8th Amendment is that it takes a foetus which is not a human being or a person and treats it as important as a real live and connected human being, a pregnant woman.

A pregnant woman is vastly more important on any sensible set of criteria to a mere foetus. Relegating a pregnant woman to parity with a mere foetus is disregarding of the pregnant woman and exaggerates the importance of the foetus.

Fortunately, much of the arid surmising on the precise nature of a foetus will be academic if or when the Eight Amendment is transformed by a Referendum.

@Tony Daly:

“There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.”

Bernard Nathanson co-founded one of the most influential abortion advocacy groups in the world (NARAL) and once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in America.

@Joe: And without external support the cells you’re so attached to wouldn’t survive. The point is is that it’s just another group of cells. The fact that it’s got 46 chromosomes or that it eventually develops into more than the sum of it’s parts makes it special how ? At the point we’re talking about removing it it’s a non sentient cluster of cells. You’re attaching a higher value to something that doesn’t even have the equipment to process self awareness , consciousness or emotion let alone actually have them over the wishes of a fully sentient, conscious, feeling human being.

@Tony Daly: personally, I don’t equate the life of a foetus with that of its mother or a more developed human, but that doesn’t mean it’s worth nothing. It’s more than just a clump of cells. It should be awe inspiring that this ‘clump of cells’ is a human in the making. It’s like seeing creation right in front of you. So I would equate the life of this proto human creature at the very least to the mother’s 9 month inconvenience.

@Paddy Ryan:

“The fact that it’s got 46 chromosomes or that it eventually develops into more than the sum of it’s parts makes it special how ?”

Can you not figure that one out Paddy? Can you think of any other cluster of cells that will develop into a full human adult? Is that not special?

How can a value be placed above wishes?

Is sentience a defining factor? Can we freely kill comatosed, anesthetized or sleeping individuals?

@Squarepeg01: I contrast the foetus with the life of a real live and actual pregnant woman. I decide that the welfare of the pregnant woman comes first last and in between. The interests of the pregnant woman is paramount in my view. The foetus comes a very, very poor second.

A foetus is not entirely without value but the person best placed to decide on the interests of the foetus is the pregnant host who is a real and actual person.

Selective quotations may try to contrive a foetus as a human being but the only real and actual human being is the pregnant woman.

Degrading the pregnant woman to parity with a mere foetus is silly, insulting and occasionally dangerous.

@Joe: a pregnant woman is more valuable than, superior to and incomparable with a foetus.

The focus should not be on the foetus.

The focus should be on the welfare of the pregnant woman.

@Francis Mc Carthy: or bill Clintons favourite partial birth abortion

Pull half out then stab to death.

@Tony Daly: I would tend to agree with you, to a certain extent. But let’s scale it up a bit, just for kicks. If a fully developed adult were hooked up to a woman without the woman’s consent and became fully dependint for oxygen and nourishment on her for an extrnded period, should the state have the power to stop the woman from terminating the connection? I would say ‘No’ the state probably should not have that right. I am therefore in that sense prochoice. But that doesn’t mean I can’t try to plead with the woman and remind her that a human life other than her own is at stake and that she would be morally callous if she were to sever the connection merely for her inconvenience.

@Tony Daly: does her welfare also include what is simply cinvenient for her?

@Joe: The fetal nervous system is not developed until 22nd-24th week. Terminating pregnancy at 12 weeks will not result in any pain or suffering for the fetous as it is unable to percieve those things. While I am not a fan of abortion on demand (there are numerous and effective contraceltives to ensure unwanted pregnacies dont happen), I believe it may be a reasonable copromise for the Irish people when voting in the Referendum. Terminations due to rape/assault/serious foetal defects / mother’s life being in danger should be available in the 1 ans 2 trimester to allow the expecting woman to make her own decision. We are living in the XXI ceuntry and those thigs should not be decided by our Govertnment

@Luke Windak:

The fact that it will. not feel pain is irrelevant. A comatosed person would probably not feel pain either but it is not acceptable to kill them.

Yes we are living in the 21st century, you would think we would have advance further than visiting unprovoked violence on most innocent, vulnerable, human being. It is regressive.

@kevin: says” or bill Clintons favourite partial birth abortion”

“Pull half out then stab to death.”

Normally,I would ask for a credible source..but on this occasion I will just advise that they either go back on their meds or adjust them..Cray cray!

@Lorraine Boland: that’s fair enough but you do understand that one thing that becomes another is not both at the same tine therefore it must be an emotional choice on your part to not talk about a caterpillar as a butterfly but talk about a foetus as a baby. An emotional choice your are entitled to make but not one valid in a debate on facts.

@Dave O Keeffe: do you concede that it is a fact that the foetus will become a baby if not aborted then ? Let’s consider that fact. And anyone who doesn’t consider their emotions and emotional response to a decision made is only making half a decision. We are not robots and facts are not the only things you should consider when debating such a difficult issue. A woman doesn’t easily come to the conclusion that she would have an abortion .. lots of emotions are included in that decision… should she just ignore how she feels?

@Joe: was waiting for you deputise Nathanson, the guy has admitted to lying and being deceitful for his entire life, good source.

@Lorraine Boland: that’s not a fact either. Just like a caterpillar won’t definitely become a butterfly but it does have the potential to do so

@Lorraine Boland: as for emotions, yes they are important to the person in the situation at the time of course they are but in a debate facts are dar more important. Kind of like how we don’t let the family of a murder victim decide the sentence of the killer.

@Kate Mooney: A rather ironic comment considering some of your previous posts. You would have course have said the same thing if the result was the complete opposite of what you wanted.