Liberals being Pro-Choice :/

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

I'm sure you're young and carefree now, but you will die one day. It could be tomorrow, today or 50 years from now. You should really think about what state you want to be in in your hour of need.

How old do you think I am? How do you know I don't have a life-shortening medical condition?

You're merely contributing to the negative view I have of hardcore religious-types; stop being so judgemental, enjoy your religion if you want to, but leave the rest of us in peace.

old hippy

prinz wrote: »

Life doesn't work that way. Eventually a row will start, when your thing impacts on my thing and vice versa. This attitude that if we're all focusing on doing our own thing everyone will be happy is nonsense.

Whose thing should we be focusing on?

Lollipops23

prinz wrote: »

Life doesn't work that way. Eventually a row will start, when your thing impacts on my thing and vice versa. This attitude that if we're all focusing on doing our own thing everyone will be happy is nonsense.

So what's your alternative?

prinz

old hippy wrote: »

Whose thing should we be focusing on?

A thing that we can all work together on. It's kind of how societies tend to work best. Pooling of everything, including deciding what things we can and can't get up to.

parrai

yutta wrote: »

Maybe if you were to focus on our common traits as human persons rather than adopting such an abrasive attitude, the world might be a better place.

This is the truth. No offence to anyone...

This is the key to proper adult discussion.

old hippy

parrai wrote: »

This is the truth. No offence to anyone...

This is the key to proper adult discussion.

Like this one from yutta?

"Why not legalise infanticide and enforce euthanasia so?"

Lollipops23

prinz wrote: »

A thing that we can all work together on. It's kind of how societies tend to work best. Pooling of everything, including deciding what things we can and can't get up to.

Filthy commie

Jokes aside, until religion can be scaled back to something that's practiced privately and not forced down our throats, I don't think that can work. (with all respect to the poster).

prinz

Lollipops23 wrote: »

So what's your alternative?

A mad idea I know, but society and the collective. It's only been around thousands years.

parrai

old hippy wrote: »

Like this one from yutta?

"Why not legalise infanticide and enforce euthanasia so?"

He was being sarcastic, which I know doesn't help, but he tried beforehand and was ridiculed

Lollipops23

prinz wrote: »

A mad idea I know, but society and the collective. It's only been around thousands years.

and unfortunately it's not working for a lot of societies.

iguana

yutta wrote: »

They're quite happy to reap all the benefits of Catholicism (e.g. their Catholic education, turning up at hatches, matches and dispatches; not to mention celebrating Christmas and Easter)

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

You mean the "Catholic education" which was paid for by the state and was the only education on offer when most of us were children despite our constitutional rights that say we should have otherwise? And lets not forget that during that same education thousands upon thousands of helpless children were physically and sexually abused by the clergy who not only covered it up but moved on abusers and allowed them to keep abusing. AND now owe the state the bones of 1 BILLION EURO because they are refusing to pay court ordered compensation to their victims.

And the celebrations of mid-winter and the fertility rituals of spring that have been practised by humanity since, long, long, long, long before there was ever even any idea of Judaism, never mind Christianity.

Exactly what are we supposed to thank an organisation rife with abusers and thieves for?

Mike 1972

yutta wrote: »

They're quite happy to reap all the benefits of Catholicism

yutta wrote: »

boardsies constantly calling for Pope Benedict XVI to be tried in front of court, yet they see nothing wrong with leaving Garret Fitzgerald, retired senior judges and retired Dept. of Education inspectors et al. to wander free.

?

Lollipops23

YAAAAY, Iguana's here!!!

prinz

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Jokes aside, until religion can be scaled back to something that's practiced privately and not forced down our throats, I don't think that can work. (with all respect to the poster).

This is where the problem lies. If somebody votes one way or whatever because of their religous beliefs that is their right. That is them doing their thing (which you deemed to be the ideal). You don't have to vote for them, but it is still their right to vote whatever way they wish and to run for office if they so wish. If I choose to vote for or against something because of my faith that's no business of yours.

So how does your world work where we're all allowed to 'do your own thing'... except stand by the morals and ethics of religion? To me it's like saying 'Our world would be a happy clappy place, where you do your thing and I do mine, as long as no left wing/right wing politics are allowed'. Essentially it's daft.

prinz

Lollipops23 wrote: »

and unfortunately it's not working for a lot of societies.

So individualism and unaccountability is your answer? It's not perfect, but it's a damn site better than everyone doing whatever the hell they like - we've evolved from that situation for good reason.

Lollipops23

prinz wrote: »

This is where the problem lies. If somebody votes one way or whatever because of their religous beliefs that is their right. That is them doing their thing (which you deemed to be the ideal). You don't have to vote for them, but it is still their right to vote whatever way they wish and to run for office if they so wish. If I choose to vote for or against something because of my faith that's no business of yours.

So how does your world work where we're all allowed to 'do your own thing'... except stand by the morals and ethics of religion? To me it's like saying 'Our world would be a happy clappy place, where you do your thing and I do mine, as long as no left wing/right wing politics are allowed'. Essentially it's daft.

I don't go into the voting booth with you; therefore it's a private matter, which you're practicing privately.
Just leave me the hell out if it, is what I'm saying.

Genuinely I don't get what's so wrong with wanting the society I live in to be rid of religious hatred...? I know it wouldn't be perfect without it, but it'd be a hell of a lot better.

yutta

Mike 1972 wrote: »

?

If you're going to go after the head of the Vatican over abuse, why not go after former Taoisigh? It's the same logic. I know the man is dead (God rest his soul), but there are many people still alive of similar stature to the Pope.

yutta

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I don't go into the voting booth with you; therefore it's a private matter, which you're practicing privately.

Personal, yes. Private, no.

prinz

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I don't go into the voting booth with you; therefore it's a private matter, which you're practicing privately.
Just leave me the hell out if it, is what I'm saying..

But if I vote for say a conservative party/person and they get into power then I am not leaving you out of it, because you're part of the same society I am. So you may be affected by it. Does it still have nothing to do with you?

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Genuinely I don't get what's so wrong with wanting the society I live in to be rid of religious hatred...? I know it wouldn't be perfect without it, but it'd be a hell of a lot better.

Religious hatred and religion are two different things.

iguana

Lollipops23 wrote: »

YAAAAY, Iguana's here!!!

prinz

iguana wrote: »

I never get that. Never

annascott

OP, are you Dana?

Mike 1972

yutta wrote: »

why not go after former Taoisigh? It's the same logic. I know the man is dead.

Are you suggesting we do this to the man ?

Some inquisitors were so thorough that they went after the dead. If a dead person was accused of heresy, his or her bones could be dug up and burned.

I kinda thought such things had gone out of fashion ?

Mickeroo

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Percentages of pregnancies ending in termination. Bolded countries have 50% or more of their population declared as Roman Catholic (debunking an earlier posters assertion that such countries necessairly have low abortion rates).

That was me that originally said that cheers. Always happy to be proven wrong.

Mickeroo

yutta wrote: »

Why not legalise infanticide and enforce euthanasia so?

I'd rather promote responsible family planning and sexual education, but each to their own.

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'd rather promote responsible family planning and sexual education, but each to their own.

That sounds well, but abortion-by-choice is neither a means of family planning or sexual education.

Family planning happens before pregnancy. I think killing is beyond family planning. Perhaps I'm crazy, I don't know any more!

skregs

I haven't read anything in this thread but, Hitler may have agreed or disagreed with or even possibly had no feelings towards abortion.

Therefore, by agreeing with, disagreeing with or having no feelings towards abortion, YOU'RE BEING LIKE HITLER.

mloc

There seems to be an increase in this "liberalism and atheism is a fad, people are doing it to be trendy" nonsense.

It strikes me as a bit desperate that those opposed to progressive thinking can't argue their point but just label an increase in those thinking progressively as following a fad, as if this somehow invalidates the argument (which it doesn't, it is a logical fallacy to think it does).

parrai

It would be interesting to hear from someone, that has had an abortion, and at the time thought of it as a good idea...

But with time, how do they feel about it, say now that they have children?
Or now that they cannot have children and desperately want a child?
Or, in retrospect, do they regret having an abortion?

I understand the reasons why some people are Pro-Choice. I think there are grounds for it, in terms of rape/incest, I fully understand it.

i think the OPs post is an interesting paradox. I think the answer lies in experience of the situation.

skregs

It strikes me as a bit desperate that those opposed to the general consensus in society call their unpopular opinions "progressive thinking" (which it isn't, it is a logical fallacy to think it is).

philologos

mloc wrote: »

There seems to be an increase in this "liberalism and atheism is a fad, people are doing it to be trendy" nonsense.

It strikes me as a bit desperate that those opposed to progressive thinking can't argue their point but just label an increase in those thinking progressively as following a fad, as if this somehow invalidates the argument (which it doesn't, it is a logical fallacy to think it does).

What's progressive about being pro-choice? It's not leading towards any progress.

It's a logical fallacy as far as I'm concerned to think this.

mloc

philologos wrote: »

What's progressive about being pro-choice? It's not leading towards any progress.

It's a logical fallacy as far as I'm concerned to think this.

I'm not referring to any single issue. I'm referring to the the ubiquitous posts that appear on nearly every thread of this type.

old hippy

parrai wrote: »

It would be interesting to hear from someone, that has had an abortion, and at the time thought of it as a good idea...

But with time, how do they feel about it, say now that they have children?
Or now that they cannot have children and desperately want a child?
Or, in retrospect, do they regret having an abortion?

I understand the reasons why some people are Pro-Choice. I think there are grounds for it, in terms of rape/incest, I fully understand it.

i think the OPs post is an interesting paradox. I think the answer lies in experience of the situation.

I don't regret my friend's termination. I only wish she had told me at the time, so I could have been there - regardless of what choice she went with.

old hippy

prinz wrote: »

Religious hatred and religion are two different things.

Between a rock and a hard place

desertcircus

philologos wrote: »

What's progressive about being pro-choice? It's not leading towards any progress.

It's a logical fallacy as far as I'm concerned to think this.

That depends entirely on how you define progress. If you don't believe abortion is morally wrong, then a policy which allows women who've unexpectedly become pregnant (or women who've been raped) to opt out of having a child as a result could fairly be described as unambiguously progressive.

parrai

old hippy wrote: »

I don't regret my friend's termination. I only wish she had told me at the time, so I could have been there - regardless of what choice she went with.

Is she ok with it now?

iguana

desertcircus wrote: »

That depends entirely on how you define progress. If you don't believe abortion is morally wrong, then a policy which allows women who've unexpectedly become pregnant (or women who've been raped) to opt out of having a child as a result could fairly be described as unambiguously progressive.

It's also progressive as the fact is women have been having abortions of one sort or another for millennia. A clean, safe medical procedure with no or minimal negative side effects, followed by the medical check ups and the option of professional counselling is incredibly progressive compared to ingesting herbs with unproven effects and a range of nasty, unpredictable side effects, the insertion of random, unsterilised objects to remove the foetus, along with who knows how much of the uterus, cervix, vaginal canal or douching with herbal/mineral/animal mixtures.

One example of such is that I henna my hair every couple of months and as I am trying to get pregnant I investigated if henna is safe to use in pregnancy. Apparently it is but some sources say it isn't. When I looked into it more I found out it can be associated with miscarriage because there was a society a hundred years or so ago where henna, mixed with other substances, one of which was poisonous, was applied to the inside of the cervix of pregnant women as an abortive and caused spontaneous miscarriage.

dilbert2

Lavezzi wrote: »

Of course the modern liberal Irish can and will do whatever they want sexually. I'm not even too concerned with abortion laws because they won't change the attitude of the people, which is the real problem. I'm just here to try and get people to acknowledge that this impure lifestyle is not good for you or anyone else, despite how it might make you 'feel' momentarily.

I just don't understand how 9 out of 10 people can say they would die to save their child. Yet, 9 out of 10 would also kill their unborn child, not for the sake of their own lives, but for their physical comfort and lifestyle. It's illogical and the only thing that can be drawn from it is that most Irish people are a bunch of sheep.

Humans are animals, and before the advent of wacky religions like Christianity with their unnatural codes and rules 2000 years ago, most humans from the earliest humanoids a few million years ago (like practically every other species) were out having sex left, right and centre. The idea that a person should stick to one person (e.g. marriage) sexually for the rest of their lives, or that sex is somehow "bad" is really just the silly philosophy of Christianity, which goes against not only human nature, but seem to forget that millions of years of evolution has left a mark on us, and will continue to do so.

Sex is natural, and humans like every other animal has been getting it on since time immemorial. Its Christians and other religionists with their relatively recent (in terms of evolution over millions of years) daft notions that engaging in sex is "promiscuous", or should only take place after a man and woman are married (which is technically an unnatural institution and against our very animalistic dna).

I sometimes envy our monkey ancestors, not only are they free of daft religious ideologies, but most of them by our standards are having the ball of their lives, humping everyone else left, right and centre. Pity religion came about when you think about it, for most of our developmental and evolutionary history, we were more than likely equally as care free as our monkey brethren, of course until that uptight organisation called Christianity and religion sunk its fangs into us.

Back on topic – again, it has been proven scientifically countless times that the foetus is not as of yet alive, and that the process of abortion does not “kill the unborn”.

K-9

mloc wrote: »

There seems to be an increase in this "liberalism and atheism is a fad, people are doing it to be trendy" nonsense.

It strikes me as a bit desperate that those opposed to progressive thinking can't argue their point but just label an increase in those thinking progressively as following a fad, as if this somehow invalidates the argument (which it doesn't, it is a logical fallacy to think it does).

Seems quite the trendy thing to do on AH anyway, ironically.

old hippy

parrai wrote: »

Is she ok with it now?

I think so. More awkward that she didn't tell me. It did kinda hurt initially but we are over that now. It was certainly not a case of "oh, dear, I'm up the duff - better get an abortion"! There were plenty of reasons that came into factor.

It's when some people think it's like a casual decision - I know that wasn't the case.

philologos

dilbert2 wrote: »

Humans are animals, and before the advent of wacky religions like Christianity with their unnatural codes and rules 2000 years ago, most humans from the earliest humanoids a few million years ago (like practically every other species) were out having sex left, right and centre. The idea that a person should stick to one person (e.g. marriage) sexually for the rest of their lives, or that sex is somehow "bad" is really just the silly philosophy of Christianity, which goes against not only human nature, but seem to forget that millions of years of evolution has left a mark on us, and will continue to do so.

Christians don't believe that sex is bad, but rather that it has an appropriate place. There's nothing all that wacky about that.

dilbert2 wrote: »

Sex is natural, and humans like every other animal has been getting it on since time immemorial. Its Christians and other religionists with their relatively recent (in terms of evolution over millions of years) daft notions that engaging in sex is "promiscuous", or should only take place after a man and woman are married (which is technically an unnatural institution and against our very animalistic dna).

See above.

dilbert2 wrote: »

I sometimes envy our monkey ancestors, not only are they free of daft religious ideologies, but most of them by our standards are having the ball of their lives, humping everyone else left, right and centre. Pity religion came about when you think about it, for most of our developmental and evolutionary history, we were more than likely equally as care free as our monkey brethren, of course until that uptight organisation called Christianity and religion sunk its fangs into us.

I would say see above, but this has another significance in that you actually think it would be acceptable for people to screw around left right and centre rather than commit themselves to building stable families and relationships.

Nobody says that you have to value what Christians do, but to argue that it is wacky for the reason of arguing that sex is essentially a good thing, but is something that has an appropriate place and purpose.

dilbert2 wrote: »

Back on topic – again, it has been proven scientifically countless times that the foetus is not as of yet alive, and that the process of abortion does not “kill the unborn”.

Back on topic, there is no such proof. In fact it is pretty self evident from a biological perspective that it is alive, in that it couldn't grow and develop on the path towards birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death if it was indeed dead.

K-9

philologos wrote: »

What's progressive about being pro-choice? It's not leading towards any progress.

It's a logical fallacy as far as I'm concerned to think this.

Well abortion rates are dropping through most of Europe so I thought that would your type of progress. Ireland practically is pro choice except for the "nod, nod, wink, wink" law and rates have been dropping.

Luckily we have the UK accessible relatively easily compared to other countries like Poland were homemade abortions put lives at risk.

philologos

K-9: I concede that to you. What I don't concede is the idea that Irish abortion rates would fall if it were legal in the Republic. Indeed, my ambition wouldn't be for acceptable death to keep continuing. Ultimately, and as ambitious and idealistic as I realise this is I would prefer if the rates were 0. A fundamental denial of the right to life isn't acceptable in my eyes, whereas it might be in others.

Lollipops23

iguana wrote: »

I should explain, I think you tend to talk a lot of sense in your posts- and I was rapidly reaching the end of my tether trying to spell it out for the more "conservative" posters. Hence relief

Mike 1972

K-9 wrote: »

Luckily we have the UK accessible relatively easily compared to other countries like Poland were homemade abortions put lives at risk.

I would have though abortion would be more accessable in Poland than Ireland given that it is legal there and while there may be restrictions the country shares land borders with seven other countries four of which are in the EU ?

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

That sounds well, but abortion-by-choice is neither a means of family planning or sexual education.

Family planning happens before pregnancy. I think killing is beyond family planning. Perhaps I'm crazy, I don't know any more!

Jebus, way to miss the point man. Proper family planning and sex education would be geared towards preventing unwanted pregnancy and such through education thereby reducing the demand for abortions.

Besides I wasn't talking about abortion in that post at all.

Mickeroo

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I should explain, I think you tend to talk a lot of sense in your posts- and I was rapidly reaching the end of my tether trying to spell it out for the more "conservative" posters. Hence relief

Awwww i think she(he?) like you Iguana

K-9

philologos wrote: »

K-9: I concede that to you. What I don't concede is the idea that Irish abortion rates would fall if it were legal in the Republic. Indeed, my ambition wouldn't be for acceptable death to keep continuing. Ultimately, and as ambitious and idealistic as I realise this is I would prefer if the rates were 0. A fundamental denial of the right to life isn't acceptable in my eyes, whereas it might be in others.

Seems odd that the rate would stop dropping just by making it legal, seeing as to all intents and purposes it is. Personally I'd prefer it was 0 too but I know that's impossible, ignoring realities doesn't really work in the real world.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I would have though abortion would be more accessable in Poland than Ireland given that it is legal there and while there may be restrictions the country shares land borders with seven other countries four of which are in the EU ?

I'd read they have a high enough illegal abortion rate, though obviously there'd be border countries as options.

yutta

old hippy wrote: »

I think so. More awkward that she didn't tell me. It did kinda hurt initially but we are over that now. It was certainly not a case of "oh, dear, I'm up the duff - better get an abortion"! There were plenty of reasons that came into factor.

It's when some people think it's like a casual decision - I know that wasn't the case.

Ever asked yourself why it's not a casual decision? If you want a tooth out, you go to the dentist. If you want to make yourself "unpregnant", you go to the abortion doc. Right?

Randy Anders

Bit abstract here, but if we are all to be pro-life, should we not condemn the killing of animals for the purpose of food production , or the killing of any animals for any reason?

After all, they have evolved too. We have just been lucky enough to have evolved a brain that is superior to theirs. Is is not a bit arrogant to assume we have a divine right to life over theirs?

I find it a bit strange that people will get upset over someone aborting an unborn foetus, yet have no problem killing and eating a cow or chicken. If an unborn child has the right to life, doesn't every other living thing on earth have that same right?

(I'm not a veggie btw, far from it!)