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
Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]
Comments
-
It's vaguely human shaped. Its nervous system is just starting to form, and prior to 12 weeks it had a 50% chance of miscarriage. Compare this to a 40 year old woman with a fully developed nervous system and all her organs, 4 kids, hopes, dreams, an education, dependants, parents, loved ones, employees, a cat.ironingbored wrote: »Then why on earth is gestation not 12 weeks?!
The government proposal is abortion up to 12 weeks with the help of a doctor, instead of with a pill in the bathroom like now. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON. We are voting to repeal the 8th, the 8th means no exceptions for anyone. If you think there should be any exceptions, or you think women should be allowed to make health decisions about their health which are not related to abortion, you have to vote Yes.
You can fight the government proposal afterwards, make it stricter if you want, but that's not what we are voting on. Look how long it took to legislate for the X case, all thanks to people who believed there should be no exceptions! i.e. no voters. You can be sure they will fight to keep this very restrictive.
We have to repeal the 8th, it is having very negative outcomes for people's health, check out "Disabled people for choice" and "disabled people together for yes" for some personal accounts, "in her shoes" too. This is not a black and white issue, there is only space for black and white issues in the constitution. If you think there should be any exceptions at all, you have to vote Yes.0 -
I find it shocking that a mod on the A&A forum should have as a fundamental belief that all atheists are pro abortion to the point that you think an anti abortion atheist is unique ! That notion is beyond narrowminded.
They said no such thing; they are inviting atheists of different views to contribute to the discussion, on that forum, as currently there are no vocal No voices0 -
SuperRabbit wrote: »It's vaguely human shaped. Its nervous system is just starting to form, and prior to 12 weeks it had a 50% chance of miscarriage. Compare this to a 40 year old woman with a fully developed nervous system and all her organs, 4 kids, hopes, dreams, an education, dependants, parents, loved ones, employees, a cat.
The government proposal is abortion up to 12 weeks with the help of a doctor, instead of with a pill in the bathroom like now. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON. We are voting to repeal the 8th, the 8th means no exceptions for anyone. If you think there should be any exceptions, or you think women should be allowed to make health decisions about their health which are not related to abortion, you have to vote Yes.
You can fight the government proposal afterwards, make it stricter if you want, but that's not what we are voting on. Look how long it took to legislate for the X case, all thanks to people who believed there should be no exceptions! i.e. no voters. You can be sure they will fight to keep this very restrictive.
We have to repeal the 8th, it is having very negative outcomes for people's health, check out "Disabled people for choice" and "disabled people together for yes" for some personal accounts, "in her shoes" too. This is not a black and white issue, there is only space for black and white issues in the constitution. If you think there should be any exceptions at all, you have to vote Yes.
Absolutely agree with this.
And this is an example of where the NO campaign are dreadfully wrong. The right to life of the unborn continues once the 8th is removed, what is removed is the equal right to life of the unborn to the mother. Your explanation of the difference between a mother and a fetus is clearly why they shouldn't have an equal right to life.0 -
-
Thread turning into a circle jerk.0
-
Advertisement
-
You could add to the discussion rather than throwing in a random Americanism and riding off into the sunset.0
-
For Forks Sake wrote: »It's the No-bots phrase of the day. I have seen/heard the phrase "social abortions" more times in the past 24 hours than I had in my 38 years on the planet.
There was fun with obstreperous yesterday, so much so that I can't spell it any more.0 -
SuperRabbit wrote: »You could add to the discussion rather than throwing in a random Americanism and riding off into the sunset.
Circle jerk is an Americanism?
Jesus, just how badly did we wreck the planet0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »That quote from the OP (the atheist in the title) is the Catholic double effect dogma. It is odd to see a professed atheist parroting dogma which is rejected by every Protestant ethos hospital, never mind the various non-Christian faiths before you get anywhere near the humanists and atheists.
An ex-Catholic atheist like myself may know this, but not even an ex-Catholic atheist would pretend this dogma is in any way sensible.
So, is the OP actually a Catholic, an atheist so steeped in Catholic upbringing that they don't see it, or an atheist pretending to believe this for some obvious reason?
Like most people in Ireland, I was raised in a Catholic family. My attitudes to the religion and God changed as I grew. I chose to study religion in secondary school because I wanted to learn more about the philosophy of religion and Christianity itself. I would say I became an agnostic atheist around the age of nineteen. I couldn't justify a personal belief in a theistic God. Could there be a God? Sure, maybe - it depends what your definition of God is, but we don't seem to be able to claim any knowledge of it. Withholding belief seems the most appropriate response.
None of this is really relevant to this discussion however. What matters is the argument at hand - dismissing any argument as religious and therefore not worthy of contemplation is dishonest. Subscribing to certain values is not the same as being religious just because a religion subscribes to those same values. The Catholic church believes murder is wrong. Most Atheist's believe murder is wrong: Does this mean most Atheists are secretly harboring Catholic views? Hardly. You can make perfectly coherent secular arguments against murder.
My argument is that once an embryo implants itself in the uterus, it is wrong to intentionally kill that life, because when left to its natural processes it will become a human infant. To kill it is to rob it of its natural potential and it's current right to life to fulfill that potential.0 -
My argument is that once an embryo implants itself in the uterus, it is wrong to intentionally kill that life, because when left to its natural processes it will become a human infant. To kill it is to rob it of its natural potential and it's current right to life to fulfill that potential.
That is scientifically incorrect.
It is not the natural processes of the embryo which enable it to become a human infant, it is the natural processes of the mother. To illustrate, consider a woman who dies ten seconds after an embryo implants itself in the uterus. It dies also.
Your analysis is also based on an unbridled and unrestricted right to life. Yet no other class of human holds such a right. If I went to China and smuggled drugs, my right to life would be forfeit, so you are arguing that a ten-second old embryo has greater rights than mine.
Your position is helpful to the debate as it demonstrates the absurdity of the pro-life position, once you strip away the religious language around it.0 -
Advertisement
-
SuperRabbit wrote: »Yes there are anti-choice atheists. I've been an atheist since I was 14 but I've only been pro-choice since I was 18. First I was convinced of the fact that with all the awful and unspeakable suffering in the world, we should prioritise taking care of the people who are already here rather than worrying about a 12 week old fetus, 2 inches in length.
A human life is not a choice. It's a human life. The choice comes when choosing to engage in sex and consenting to the possibility of creating a human life.I felt that first we would make the world safe for everyone, get food and water and education and health for everyone, and THEN start worrying about abortion
Would that justify killing you in the womb or a mad man kidnapping a woman with a planned pregnancy and performing an abortion because 'there aren't enough resources in the world'So it started with logic, but then as I grew older I got more and more empathetic and this got reinforced, you just can't have empathy and vote no. The 8th denies absolutely everyone, regardless of circumstances, a choice about their lives and their health. Voting no means no exceptions, you just can't have empathy and do that. Why do people think the women in their lives would have an abortion that wasn't absolutely necessary? Nobody wants to have an abortion. Right now people are being forced to risk their health by doing it at home in their own bathroom, or going to England. This is just punishing people needlessly.
The 8th says they both have the equal right to life and this should be protected as far as practicable. A women are entitled to an abortion in the event her life is in danger and it doesn't have to be imminent.
Where is your empathy for the unborn developing human infant? They have no rights unless you say so? This line of thinking reeks of moral relativism.
"Nobody wants to have an abortion" That's patently untrue and naive. The pro-choice argument is it's just a bundle of cells that doesn't mean anything and should be treated in the same category as a pimple and people should have no concern with killing it.0 -
I'm voting yes but I'm not in favour of no abortion law.
I don't think that just because a woman decides that they don't want to have a baby is a good enough reason for abortion.
There are plenty of ways to avoid getting pregnant in the first place and being irresponsible is not a good enough reason for abortion imo.
There are also women who go through depression while pregnant and they could make a decision that they might regret for the rest of their lives.
There needs to be laws and I'm in favour of pretty strict ones. There are very good reasons for abortion like a woman's health, or for a victim of rape and also if the baby is going to be still born or even very ill for their whole lives.
The laws we currently have need to be replaced but it's important that we do have proper sensible abortion law too.0 -
That is scientifically incorrect.
It is not the natural processes of the embryo which enable it to become a human infant, it is the natural processes of the mother. To illustrate, consider a woman who dies ten seconds after an embryo implants itself in the uterus. It dies also.
Your analysis is also based on an unbridled and unrestricted right to life. Yet no other class of human holds such a right. If I went to China and smuggled drugs, my right to life would be forfeit, so you are arguing that a ten-second old embryo has greater rights than mine.
Your position is helpful to the debate as it demonstrates the absurdity of the pro-life position, once you strip away the religious language around it.
This is another example of the moral relativism and confusion which pervades the pro-choice argument. The right to life is a right which has developed in western society as an inalienable right which another person has no right to take away from you. In fact, it is the job of government to protect human life as far as is possible and practicable.
That actions of an authoritarian regime does not negate these right, it tramples on them.
A mother has a right to her life as does the human life inside her. A tragedy and/or crime ending her life has no affect on the rights of the unborn.
There is no religious language here, but I understand why you would call it religious to justify your own views and comfort yourself.0 -
The Catholic church believes murder is wrong. Most Atheist's believe murder is wrong: Does this mean most Atheists are secretly harboring Catholic views? Hardly.
Only the Catholic church, out of all the Christian churches, out of all the religions in the world, before we start on the humanists and atheists, only the Catholic church believes in the dogma of double effect.
Wait, no, the Catholic church and you, coincidentally raised a Catholic.
Does this mean you are harbouring Catholic views? Yes, it does, and it is not a secret.
Apply some of your religious knowledge research skills to the doctrine of double effect. You will quickly see that it is dangerous baloney which has led to damaging operations reducing fertility for generations of Irish women in Catholic ethos hospitals.0 -
-
This is another example of the moral relativism and confusion which pervades the pro-choice argument. The right to life is a right which has developed in western society as an inalienable right which another person has no right to take away from you. In fact, it is the job of government to protect human life as far as is possible and practicable.
That actions of an authoritarian regime does not negate these right, it tramples on them.
A mother has a right to her life as does the human life inside her. A tragedy and/or crime ending her life has no affect on the rights of the unborn.
There is no religious language here, but I understand why you would call it religious to justify your own views and comfort yourself.
There is no such thing as a human right that is free from conflict or challenge from other rights. A balance between rights is always required.
I never said that there was any religious language. What I said was that the pro-life position, without the supporting religious beliefs, lacks intellectual rigour. My view on that stands.
Your atheistic pro-life stance does not stand up to any scrutiny at all, because the belief that human life commences at conception is a religious rather than a scientific one. Without that religious context (which I respect but disagree with), your stance is without any logic at all.
In order to convince me of your argument, you would have to explain why a clump of cells at implantation is more worthy of life than a clump of cells from a cut toenail. From a religious perspective, I understand the difference (and why they would find my previous sentence offensive), from an atheistic one, I don't. Stating that the potential for human life makes it human is not a sufficient test, as you are equating potential with reality in the 8th, a logical inconsistency.0 -
The HSE have been the cause of many many deaths and the efficiency of the health service before the HSE wasnt any better. Many many people have died due to the health service and are dying due to the health service, the hepatitis scandal, the cervical screening scandal, the trolley scandal, the babies that died in maternity hospitals scandal, not to mention the carry on in some of the nursing home scandals, then the babies that died in ballinasloe etc. So now babies up to 12 months if abortion is voted in will be killed by this state! I think this country is sinking down the gutter fast. Is it not amazing that not one poitical party is advocating a No Vote and the way the HSE is at the moment its all one way the country is going no balance. I think its time to get out of this country and renounce Irish citizenship. Shame on Ireland who let down all the people who died and are dying over the HSE scandals! Shame again on Ireland if it votes yes to abortion! The way I see it is Satan is live and well in Ireland through the HSE and everyone of the Poitical Parties. Its time to renounce irish citizenship not for not minding our own business like what happened in Israel! Is it not time for the majority to say enough killing done here in Ireland and if the majority cant see that then the rest of us who have commonsense should renounce irish citizenship. I am still proud of my county but not to be Irish how could one be proud of Ireland anymore.0
-
As for you blanch152 your attitude and stance does not surprise me one bit. Whether you are an atheist or religious you on the cervical screening scandal defended the HSE lack of accountability by attempting to use an excuse with no substance that the HSE was underfunded! No one would fall for that propagandic excuse! Now isnt it amazing that you are also proabortion aswell! You obviously with anyone dying either the poor people who were wronged at the hands of the HSE or the poor 12week old babies in abortion if its voted in!! Shame on you. You should renounce Irish citizenship as you just like to be on the other side of all debates!0
-
Viewpoint2 wrote: »The HSE have been the cause of many many deaths and the efficiency of the health service before the HSE wasnt any better. Many many people have died due to the health service and are dying due to the health service, the hepatitis scandal, the cervical screening scandal, the trolley scandal, the babies that died in maternity hospitals scandal, not to mention the carry on in some of the nursing home scandals, then the babies that died in ballinasloe etc. So now babies up to 12 months if abortion is voted in will be killed by this state! I think this country is sinking down the gutter fast. Is it not amazing that not one poitical party is advocating a No Vote and the way the HSE is at the moment its all one way the country is going no balance. I think its time to get out of this country and renounce Irish citizenship. Shame on Ireland who let down all the people who died and are dying over the HSE scandals! Shame again on Ireland if it votes yes to abortion! The way I see it is Satan is live and well in Ireland through the HSE and everyone of the Poitical Parties. Its time to renounce irish citizenship not for not minding our own business like what happened in Israel! Is it not time for the majority to say enough killing done here in Ireland and if the majority cant see that then the rest of us who have commonsense should renounce irish citizenship. I am still proud of my county but not to be Irish how could one be proud of Ireland anymore.
Can you please link to where exactly you saw this proposal? I need to see the proof that a group or individual is advocating the murder of born infants up to a year old.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
Mod note:
There are some interesting debates going on here but I think a quick reminder of the forum rules is required:
1. Keep to the topic. This thread is about abortion. If you want to discuss the Cervical testing scandal or other issues please do so in another thread.
2. Please be civil. Obviously people can respond to another's post, but don't respond to the poster themselves. Examples include referring to a poster's other opinions, checking their post counts, aggressive and personal comments etc. Any more of this will be dealt with by sanctions including bans if that is what it takes to keep the debate going.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Only the Catholic church, out of all the Christian churches, out of all the religions in the world, before we start on the humanists and atheists, only the Catholic church believes in the dogma of double effect.
Wait, no, the Catholic church and you, coincidentally raised a Catholic.
Does this mean you are harbouring Catholic views? Yes, it does, and it is not a secret.
Apply some of your religious knowledge research skills to the doctrine of double effect. You will quickly see that it is dangerous baloney which has led to damaging operations reducing fertility for generations of Irish women in Catholic ethos hospitals.
I never mentioned the doctrine of double affect. You inserted it and claimed I did or implied I believed in it.
You're desire and attempts to straw man me are quite obvious. Also you seem to claim an amazing gift in reading minds. I'm not a Catholic and I can defend my pro-life views quite easily without reference to a God. I don't know how clear I have to be about that before you'll accept it. Or maybe you're just being dishonest and won't.0 -
My argument is that once an embryo implants itself in the uterus, it is wrong to intentionally kill that life, because when left to its natural processes it will become a human infant. To kill it is to rob it of its natural potential and it's current right to life to fulfill that potential.
I get what you are saying. But then where does that leave something like contraception, because, like you have stated above, if everything was left to its natural processes, there is a good chance it would become a human infant also. Now you could say well a child isnt conceived every time, but then a fetus doesnt become a human infant every time either...In order to convince me of your argument, you would have to explain why a clump of cells at implantation is more worthy of life than a clump of cells from a cut toenail. From a religious perspective, I understand the difference (and why they would find my previous sentence offensive), from an atheistic one, I don't.
But in this regard, surely every living person is in fact a clump of cells also?0 -
There is no such thing as a human right that is free from conflict or challenge from other rights. A balance between rights is always required.
Sure, I can agree with this to a degree. There are instances when rights must be balanced and instances when they do not.I never said that there was any religious language. What I said was that the pro-life position, without the supporting religious beliefs, lacks intellectual rigour. My view on that stands.
Yeah you did: "Your position is helpful to the debate as it demonstrates the absurdity of the pro-life position, once you strip away the religious language around it.Your atheistic pro-life stance does not stand up to any scrutiny at all, because the belief that human life commences at conception is a religious rather than a scientific one. Without that religious context (which I respect but disagree with), your stance is without any logic at all.
A few problems with this. 1. It clearly is human life. It contains a full human genome and fits the biological definition of what life is. Therefore, the definition of it as human life is sound. The mere existence of human life isn't the crux of my argument though. It's when it becomes implanted in the Uterus. The train has left the station at this point. To kill it after this point is to rob it of its natural potential.
This is a value system I'm arguing for. To say that religion is required to justify it is to say that a religion has a monopoly on values and morality, which I disagree. If only religions can have value systems then everyone in this thread is religious by that definition.
Science can only inform. It can tell you what is and how it works. It can't tell how things should be or how you should act. That's where Philosophy comes in.In order to convince me of your argument, you would have to explain why a clump of cells at implantation is more worthy of life than a clump of cells from a cut toenail. From a religious perspective, I understand the difference (and why they would find my previous sentence offensive), from an atheistic one, I don't. Stating that the potential for human life makes it human is not a sufficient test, as you are equating potential with reality in the 8th, a logical inconsistency.
Cells at implantation is worthy of life because it is human life to begin with and it will become a human infant when left to it's natural processes, it is doing this every second of every day after implantation. Cells from a cut toe nail will not. To kill it intentionally is to rob it of it's life and natural potential. You have to convince me why it isn't worthy of its natural potential.0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote: »I get what you are saying. But then where does that leave something like contraception, because, like you have stated above, if everything was left to its natural processes, there is a good chance it would become a human infant also. Now you could say well a child isnt conceived every time, but then a fetus doesnt become a human infant every time either...
Not sure I understand the question. I have no problem with contraception. Contraception prevents the formation of human life with potential to become a human infant. I have no problem with the morning after pill either, as it prevents implantation of an embryo.0 -
This is false, there are many many instances were the right to life is not absolute.
It is also protected in law.
True. Life and property can be taken away by government, but only after being found guilty of a crime through the due process of the law. A human fetus has committed no crime in being created.0 -
Not sure I understand the question. I have no problem with contraception. Contraception prevents the formation of human life with potential to become a human infant. I have no problem with the morning after pill either, as it prevents implantation of an embryo.
Well you indicated that the definitive logic you used was that, if everything is left to it's natural processes it will become a human infant. So my point is the same, or at least a very similar argument can be made about contraception. Yet you have stated that you dont have an issue with that, or indeed the MAP either. I dont see how prevention of fertilisation, or the prevention of implantation of the embryo, is all that different to a subsequent removal shortly afterwards.
Im not trying to argue with you, Im just curious as to how you distinguish a difference there.0 -
-
I never mentioned the doctrine of double affect. You inserted it and claimed I did or implied I believed in it.
The bit I quoted from your OP is the doctrine of double effect:
In the event the mother's life is in danger, abortion is justified, but it is not the intentional ending of one life, but the unfortunate consequence of providing the medical treatment necessary to save the mother's life.
The fact that you don't recognize it while being able to repeat it says you soaked it up during your catholic upbringing. You should really go through that closet and check if there are any other Catholic leftovers.0 -
A human fetus has committed no crime in being created.
Either has the woman you expect it to remain embedded.
Any person male or female finding themselves in uncomfortable/difficult situations what's the natural instinct? Get themselves out of it...if that situation is a pregnant woman who doesn't/cant carry to term. That is absolutely dangerous without question.0 -
Advertisement
-
Viewpoint2 wrote: »The HSE have been the cause of many many deaths and the efficiency of the health service before the HSE wasnt any better. Many many people have died due to the health service and are dying due to the health service, the hepatitis scandal, the cervical screening scandal, the trolley scandal, the babies that died in maternity hospitals scandal, not to mention the carry on in some of the nursing home scandals, then the babies that died in ballinasloe etc. So now babies up to 12 months if abortion is voted in will be killed by this state! I think this country is sinking down the gutter fast. Is it not amazing that not one poitical party is advocating a No Vote and the way the HSE is at the moment its all one way the country is going no balance. I think its time to get out of this country and renounce Irish citizenship. Shame on Ireland who let down all the people who died and are dying over the HSE scandals! Shame again on Ireland if it votes yes to abortion! The way I see it is Satan is live and well in Ireland through the HSE and everyone of the Poitical Parties. Its time to renounce irish citizenship not for not minding our own business like what happened in Israel! Is it not time for the majority to say enough killing done here in Ireland and if the majority cant see that then the rest of us who have commonsense should renounce irish citizenship. I am still proud of my county but not to be Irish how could one be proud of Ireland anymore.
While I agree with you that being Irish is nothing to be proud of, and the HSE are hopeless, I disagree with you that people who have been raped or had miscarriages and FFA should be forced to carry the unborn to term, and I disagree with you that it is any of your business what any other adult, teenager or child with a crisis pregnancy does either.
I think that renouncing your citizenship isn't a bad idea: we have one of the best passports in the world, it allows us to work all over Europe and it means we are welcome in most countries, there are children drowning in the Adriatic because they don't have this little wine-coloured book that you are happily going to renounce because you think foetuses are more important than humans.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement