Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Danny Donut

Infini wrote: »

In fairness while men dont carry the baby they do have sister's, mother's and wive's who do and will be affected by pregnancy's that can go south due to various circumstances and don't want to see them suffer either. Collateral damage effect.

Fair comment but it remeinds me of the hen and the pig.

The hen and the pig are really happy on the farm and wonder how they can repay the farmer for being so kind.

I know says the hen - we can give the farmer eggs and bacon for his breakfast every morning.

Hmmm - says the pig - I see that we are both involved, yet I am the only one participating.

blanch152

Pete29 wrote: »

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.

Not true at all.

I am reluctant to introduce something such as waiting lists for transplants, but they are life and death. The state sometimes chooses to give one person a transplant but not another, even though no crime is being committed. Remember the controversy over George Best getting a liver transplant?

Why is someone who drinks alchohol less entitled to the life-giving nature of a transplant than someone who doesn't? All the time, people in the health service are judging different people's right to life and balancing between them. That is reality. Why do some people get the medicine and others the placebo in testing medical breakthroughs, especially ones that offer hope to the terminally ill?

You seem to have some sort of spiritual (I hesitate to use the word religious but you could say religious with a small "r") belief in the concept of life beginning at implantation and deserving rights thereafter. There is no scientific basis to that belief, and there is no logic to that belief. You haven't explained to me why something with the potential for life gets equal rights to someone with the actual reality of life.

Viewpoint2

Look its my business what someone does re abortion if its a social abortion. When a cruicial decision is made readily available the youth of today usually snap it up thats the worry if you understand. Not everyone will have morals and in theory could opt for it easily. I am not saying which way I will vote just saying the irish youth of today opt out easy and thats a fear where life is involved. Yes you will have rape cases etc and I understand that but equally you will have one night stands and some who will just cooly abort that would be wrong I believe. Where do we draw the line once its a legal entitlement? Also the way the HSE has been carrying on can you imagine how uncapable they will be in carrying out safe abortions as in will they be the cause of the mother dying anyway with the aborted child? Also will the HSE have any counselling services etc for mothers who abort? Id fear the worst really would! More people will die at the hands of the health service trust me! As for renouncing citizenship shur we are as bad and worse with the HSE as whats happening in warzones in other countries as we are standing over the HSE been the cause of deaths of babies and children and adults.

SusieBlue

Viewpoint2 wrote: »

Look its my business what someone does re abortion if its a social abortion. When a cruicial decision is made readily available the youth of today usually snap it up thats the worry if you understand. Not everyone will have morals and in theory could opt for it easily. I am not saying which way I will vote just saying the irish youth of today opt out easy and thats a fear where life is involved. Yes you will have rape cases etc and I understand that but equally you will have one night stands and some who will just cooly abort that would be wrong I believe. Where do we draw the line once its a legal entitlement? Also the way the HSE has been carrying on can you imagine how uncapable they will be in carrying out safe abortions as in will they be the cause of the mother dying anyway with the aborted child? Also will the HSE have any counselling services etc for mothers who abort? Id fear the worst really would! More people will die at the hands of the health service trust me! As for renouncing citizenship shur we are as bad and worse with the HSE as whats happening in warzones in other countries as we are standing over the HSE been the cause of deaths of babies and children and adults.

What’s a social abortion? I take it it’s an abortion for a reason you don’t personally approve of?
Why do women need your approval about which is a ‘good’ abortion and which is a ‘bad one’?

The Specialist

Viewpoint2 wrote: »

Look its my business what someone does re abortion if its a social abortion.

No it's not. It's absolutely none of your business or anyone else's.

blanch152

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But in this regard, surely every living person is in fact a clump of cells also?

A living person, a fetus, a toenail clipping, flaky skin and excrement are all clumps of human cells.

What makes one alive, the other not, what makes one part of humanity, the other not?

Some are clearly alive and human - a living person - and some are clearly not - excrement. Where do you define the point at which you acquire the right to life?

You can have a scientific answer to the question - there is no sign of consciousness until the third trimester.

You can have a logical answer to the question - something with only a 50% potential of life at best shouldn't have the same rights as someone with the reality of life.

You can have a religious answer to the question - the egg and sperm must always meet so no contraception, no abortion (and variations on this theme depending on the religion)

I am comfortable with someone choosing one or all of the above as there is a clear explanation, even if I disagree with them. However, the answer of the OP is claimed to have no religious basis, clearly has no basis in science and there is no logic to it at all. It appears to be based on something else.

blanch152

Viewpoint2 wrote: »

Look its my business what someone does re abortion if its a social abortion. When a cruicial decision is made readily available the youth of today usually snap it up thats the worry if you understand. Not everyone will have morals and in theory could opt for it easily. I am not saying which way I will vote just saying the irish youth of today opt out easy and thats a fear where life is involved. Yes you will have rape cases etc and I understand that but equally you will have one night stands and some who will just cooly abort that would be wrong I believe. Where do we draw the line once its a legal entitlement? Also the way the HSE has been carrying on can you imagine how uncapable they will be in carrying out safe abortions as in will they be the cause of the mother dying anyway with the aborted child? Also will the HSE have any counselling services etc for mothers who abort? Id fear the worst really would! More people will die at the hands of the health service trust me! As for renouncing citizenship shur we are as bad and worse with the HSE as whats happening in warzones in other countries as we are standing over the HSE been the cause of deaths of babies and children and adults.

Have you so little trust in Irish women that you believe some of them will "just cooly abort" that you want to regulate all of their lives to prevent something possibly true but only at the extremes?

Macha

Yep, that's Irish women. Out to the hairdressers, do a bit of shopping, grab a coffee, get an abortion, go to the cinema, head out for drinks. That's the life!

Edit: actually please don't repeal the 8th. Shur, don't we all love a little weekend away, a little hop over to the UK to see the sights and sounds of London or Liverpool and pop into an abortion clinic every now and then?

Hitman3000

SusieBlue wrote:

What’s a social abortion? I take it it’s an abortion for a reason you don’t personally approve of? Why do women need your approval about which is a ‘good’ abortion and which is a ‘bad one’?

Social Abortion is the latest buzz phrase from Maria Steen and the Iona Insitute.

Wrongway1985

Viewpoint2 wrote: »

When a cruicial decision is made readily available the youth of today usually snap it up thats the worry if you understand. Not everyone will have morals and in theory could opt for it easily. I am not saying which way I will vote just saying the irish youth of today opt out easy and thats a fear where life is involved. Yes you will have rape cases etc and I understand that but equally you will have one night stands and some who will just cooly abort that would be wrong I believe.

It has been knocked back by the no campaign on a number of occasions that the 14 year jail term in place is irrelevant as no one has been prosecuted. If it is in fact irrelevant then you are of the understanding we are in 2018, a few clicks of a button and abortion pills are purchased and on the way to those who have opted to acquire them with the intention of ending pregnancy.

Are people that naive to think this is safe? It's basically allowed and practically legal I'd go as far to say as punishment isn't enforced so your notions that you are worried about...I hate to break it to you are already in play!, you condone these "social abortions" just not safely or in your opinion is it time to inflict prosecutions for those women who broke the law due to a crisis pregnancy?

On the one night stand thing, as fellas we can have a one night stand even using contraception the person we hooked up discovers later shes actually fallen pregnant. Guess what? technically we can walk away good luck and thanks!, She's trapped as it's accepted in this country she must carry no ifs or buts and oh yeah to top it off she's solely to blame for the fusion of egg and sperm also that's a usual one. Don't pass judgement give her the choice to walk away too should she want it, it's her life.

Pete29

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

I was mistaken. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, but it changes nothing. The origin of an argument has no bearing on it's validity. Just because an argument was formulated by a Catholic priest doesn't make it a theistic argument. My argument above is not a theistic one. The problem of a life threatening pregnancy could just as easily be viewed in consequentialist or utilitarian terms and it would be equally non theistic.

Overheal

Macha wrote: »

Yep, that's Irish women. Out to the hairdressers, do a bit of shopping, grab a coffee, get an abortion, go to the cinema, head out for drinks. That's the life!

Edit: actually please don't repeal the 8th. Shur, don't we all love a little weekend away, a little hop over to the UK to see the sights and sounds of London or Liverpool and pop into an abortion clinic every now and then?

Last week on AH someone was arguing that y'all needed the babies to keep the pension funds going.

Pete29

blanch152 wrote: »

Not true at all.

I am reluctant to introduce something such as waiting lists for transplants, but they are life and death. The state sometimes chooses to give one person a transplant but not another, even though no crime is being committed. Remember the controversy over George Best getting a liver transplant?

Why is someone who drinks alchohol less entitled to the life-giving nature of a transplant than someone who doesn't? All the time, people in the health service are judging different people's right to life and balancing between them. That is reality. Why do some people get the medicine and others the placebo in testing medical breakthroughs, especially ones that offer hope to the terminally ill?

You seem to have some sort of spiritual (I hesitate to use the word religious but you could say religious with a small "r") belief in the concept of life beginning at implantation and deserving rights thereafter. There is no scientific basis to that belief, and there is no logic to that belief. You haven't explained to me why something with the potential for life gets equal rights to someone with the actual reality of life.

Doctors employed by the state deciding who gets a limit resource of organs is not the same as the state allowing someone to kill a developing human child.

What is the scientific basis to the idea that you deserve to continue living your life?

Overheal

Viewpoint2 wrote: »

Look its my business what someone does re abortion if its a social abortion.

And what the hell is a social abortion, besides a made-up term by the No side to make you think 1) it's done for fun, like getting your nails done with your girlfriends, and 2) it's a social decision, ie. a decision that involves you personally.

Maybe you'd like to propose an abortion council you can be the chair of where the wimmins come and tell you why they need an abortion and you decide whether its a good enough reason?

Pete29

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

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.

I didn't say they had. A healthy pregnancy consentually concieved has no justification in being terminated. It's robbing a developing child of their right to life.

Overheal

Pete29 wrote: »

I didn't say they had. A healthy pregnancy consentually concieved has no justification in being terminated. It's robbing a developing child of their right to life.

Except under the 8th, there are still instances where the child is conceived with consent and is planned by both parents, and medical complications arise. Right now doctors don't do anything still when that child miscarries, until either the fetal heartbeat is completely gone, or the odds of the mother dying exceed 51%. Despite that when a fetus is miscarrying it has no hope for life, while the woman is bleeding out.

Pete29

Overheal wrote: »

And what the hell is a social abortion, besides a made-up term by the No side to make you think 1) it's done for fun, like getting your nails done with your girlfriends, and 2) it's a social decision, ie. a decision that involves you personally.

Maybe you'd like to propose an abortion council you can be the chair of where the wimmins come and tell you why they need an abortion and you decide whether its a good enough reason?

I agree, social abortion is kind of dumb term, but I'l explain what it means. It means having an abortion after the developing child was conceived consensually and it is a healthy pregnancy, but the mother wants to terminate because it is unplanned, inconvenient or doesn't want to be pregnant because of the responsibility and anxiety of the situation and its consequences personally and socially.

Overheal

Pete29 wrote: »

I agree, social abortion is kind of dumb term, but I'l explain what it means. It means having an abortion after the developing child was conceived consensually and it is a healthy pregnancy, but the mother wants to terminate because it is unplanned, inconvenient or doesn't want to be pregnant because of the responsibility and anxiety of the situation and its consequences personally and socially.

What about if contraception fails, her and the father are already on the dole, she already has 5 children, etc etc etc?

What do you define as an inconvenience that doesn't pass the smell test?

Wrongway1985

Pete29 wrote: »

I didn't say they had. A healthy pregnancy consentually concieved has no justification in being terminated. It's robbing a developing child of their right to life.

You didn't say she commited a crime, but understand you're idea of trying to force a woman remain pregnant against her will is punishing her as if she did!

The sex might be consensual sure but the consent to have a baby is entirely different but it seems like you are oddly putting the two together.

Pete29

Overheal wrote: »

Except under the 8th, there are still instances where the child is conceived with consent and is planned by both parents, and medical complications arise. Right now doctors don't do anything still when that child miscarries, until either the fetal heartbeat is completely gone, or the odds of the mother dying exceed 51%. Despite that when a fetus is miscarrying it has no hope for life, while the woman is bleeding out.

That could all be legislated for without removing the 8th by further amendment and/or legislation. Wants really wanted is liberal laws for on demand abortion.

Pete29

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

You didn't say she commited a crime, but understand you're idea of trying to force a woman remain pregnant against her will is punishing her as if she did!

The sex might be consensual sure but the consent to have a baby is entirely different but it seems like you are oddly putting the two together.

They are together. The main biological function of sex is reproduction and pregnancy. There's no divorcing one from the other. To consent to sex is to consent to the possibility of pregnancy; and to consent to the possibility of pregnancy is to consent to allowing a human to develop within your womb.

If you think this is unfair or a form of punishment, then you need to grow up because you're clearly not mature enough to have sex if you're not willing to accept this facts.

blanch152

Pete29 wrote: »

What is the scientific basis to the idea that you deserve to continue living your life?

There is no scientific basis to the idea that you deserve to continue living your life, I agree. I never suggested there was.

Pete29 wrote: »

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.


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.

Like many on the pro-life side however, you prefer to give rights to an unborn fetus to live its potential while denying actual living human beings the rights to their natural potential, normally pregnant women, but in this case, potential transplant patients.

Once again, we are left with the fact that there is no logic or scientific basis to the idea that consciousness and life begin at implantation. As you reject the religious basis, and haven't explained the philosophical basis, other than because you say it is so, we are left without a clear explanation for your view on the commencement of life.

Others have accused you of being a closet Catholic, I have stopped myself from doing so, but you are leaving little possible alternatives, unless you can explain the philosophical basis for your belief.

blanch152

Pete29 wrote: »

I agree, social abortion is kind of dumb term, but I'l explain what it means. It means having an abortion after the developing child was conceived consensually and it is a healthy pregnancy, but the mother wants to terminate because it is unplanned, inconvenient or doesn't want to be pregnant because of the responsibility and anxiety of the situation and its consequences personally and socially.

Who are you to judge whether a woman just thinks a pregnancy is inconvenient rather than as a result of rape or is suicidal?

The whole idea of "social abortion" is deeply misogynist and distrusting of women.

Wrongway1985

Pete29 wrote: »

They are together. The main biological function of sex is reproduction and pregnancy. There's no divorcing one from the other. To consent to sex is to consent to the possibility of pregnancy; and to consent to the possibility of pregnancy is to consent to allowing a human to develop within your womb.

If you think this is unfair or a form of punishment, then you need to grow up because you're clearly not mature enough to have sex if you're not willing to accept this facts.

That is beyond delusional, all people who decide to have sex in the same moment agree to be parents should pregnancy arise? Absolute nonsense.

Of course I think it is disgraceful and very very unfair you see it fit to force a woman into an unwanted pregnancy because you want a baby born yet she has to carry to term. You do not care if the child is born into an unfit and unsuitable environment she just has to have the child because she consented to have sex.

I can't accept that no as they are not facts - all people who agree to engage in sex agree in that instant agree it could be family time; no certainly not, people have sex for pleasure and may never want kids surprising eh? but that is a fact.

Pete29

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no scientific basis to the idea that you deserve to continue living your life, I agree. I never suggested there was.




Like many on the pro-life side however, you prefer to give rights to an unborn fetus to live its potential while denying actual living human beings the rights to their natural potential, normally pregnant women, but in this case, potential transplant patients.

Once again, we are left with the fact that there is no logic or scientific basis to the idea that consciousness and life begin at implantation. As you reject the religious basis, and haven't explained the philosophical basis, other than because you say it is so, we are left without a clear explanation for your view on the commencement of life.

Others have accused you of being a closet Catholic, I have stopped myself from doing so, but you are leaving little possible alternatives, unless you can explain the philosophical basis for your belief.

So why should get to continue to live if there's no scientific basis to do so?

I don't give that right. That right is inherent with it; I'm acknowledging those rights. Just like I acknowledge your inherent right to live. When did your right to your life begin? I never said consciousness begins at conception or implantation. Life clearly does though. Look up the definition of life and you'll find it applies to a human fetus.

It will be conscious when left to it's natural processes, eventually. You know new born babies usually don't show glimmers of consciousness until about 5 months old? Is it ok to kill a baby ten minutes after it was born?

What about if you end up in a temporary coma? You're not conscious. Can I kill you?

None of these arguments are theistic. To claim so is dishonest and to try and claim im a catholic so you can feel better about ignoring them is even more so. I know I'm not a Catholic, so I don't really care if you think I am. If you can't see that these are secular arguments and that there validity doesn't depend on who makes them, then you don't understand the rules of conversation.

Overheal

Pete29 wrote: »

That could all be legislated for without removing the 8th by further amendment and/or legislation. Wants really wanted is liberal laws for on demand abortion.

Not true, it would be deemed unconstitutional because it is superseded by the 8th amendment.

Pete29

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

That is beyond delusional, all people who decide to have sex in the same moment agree to be parents should pregnancy arise? Absolute nonsense.

Of course I think it is disgraceful and very very unfair you see it fit to force a woman into an unwanted pregnancy because you want a baby born yet she has to carry to term. You do not care if the child is born into an unfit and unsuitable environment she just has to have the child because she consented to have sex.

I can't accept that no as they are not facts - all people who agree to engage in sex agree in that instant agree it could be family time; no certainly not, people have sex for pleasure and may never want kids surprising eh? but that is a fact.

Nope. You're clearly refusing to see the causal relationship between your actions and the consequences you can possibly create.

What is the main biological function of sex? Hate to burst your ego centric, hedonism bubble, but it's for procreation. Biological fact. If you disagree read a book. The fact it's enjoyable doesn't remove the responsibility you have.

Overheal

Pete29 wrote: »

Nope. You're clearly refusing to see the causal relationship between your actions and the consequences you can possibly create.

What is the main biological function of sex? Hate to burst your ego centric, hedonism bubble, but it's for procreation. Biological fact. If you disagree read a book. The fact it's enjoyable doesn't remove the responsibility you have.

Sex should only be performed to achieve procreation?

Sintend

Overheal wrote: »

Sex should only be performed to achieve procreation?

That is the purpose of sex. Contraception exists but it isn't perfect. When you participate in sex you have to realise that a child is a likely outcome of that situation. If you don't want children then you have the choice to abstain from sex. If you have sex anyway then a child shouldn't be terminated because you're too selfish to live up to the consequences of your actions.

Overheal

Sintend wrote: »

That is the purpose of sex. Contraception exists but it isn't perfect. When you participate in sex you have to realise that a child is a likely outcome of that situation. If you don't want children then you have the choice to abstain from sex. If you have sex anyway then a child shouldn't be terminated because you're too selfish to live up to the consequences of your actions.

Where is this choice if you are raped?