Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Calina

Pete29 wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I read one case where the boyfriend lied to her and had sex with her without a condom. Should she be forced to carry that pregnancy she did not want?

Yes, because she consented to the sex. It would be the same case if he was wearing a condom and it failed.

Consent was conditional. That means the boyfriend cannot claim she consented if he did not comply with the condition she set. I would feel utterly violated if my boyfriend did that to me.

Choosing not to wear a condom (and lying about it) is not the same case as wearing a condom that fails. And conditional consent where the condition is not met is not consensual.

Pete29

blanch152 wrote: »

But not the health of the mother.

Define 'health of the mother'

Hitman3000

Pete29 wrote:

Define 'health of the mother'

You never posted in the A and A thread on abortion I thought you were anxious to share your unique view?

blacklilly

The Specialist wrote: »

It's not a human life, it's a foetus. Typical emotionally maniplulative bull**** from the No side because you really don't have anything else to hang your arguements on.

It's its not a human life, what life form is it? Basic science acknowledges that it is a human life.

SusieBlue

blacklilly wrote: »

It's its not a human life, what life form is it? Basic science acknowledges that it is a human life.

The question isn't whether its a life.
Its whether its deserving of an equal right to life as that of the woman who is carrying it.

oscarBravo

Pete29 wrote: »

Define 'health of the mother'

Hi there.

In what circumstances would you consider abortion to be justified?

James Brown

Fair play to Varadkar speaking out on the right to choose. Great to see a politician take a stand and publicise it. There are others, but I don't rate the antics of the Healy-Raes as genuine.

blacklilly

SusieBlue wrote: »

The question isn't whether its a life.
Its whether its deserving of an equal right to life as that of the woman who is carrying it.

It was stated earlier that a fetus wasn't human. I was merely stating the fact that it is indeed human.

Hotblack Desiato

Nobody stated that it wasn't human. That's not terribly useful though, as any human tissue - toenail clippings, removed appendixes, tumours - are human too.

What's debatable is whether an embryo or foetus is a human life - it has some characteristics of human life, but not others i.e. it cannot exist independently.

What's not debateable imho is whether a foetus or embryo is a person - legally and in society generally we regard personhood as beginning at birth.

blanch152

Pete29 wrote: »

Define 'health of the mother'

Health of the mother is a simple enough term to understand. What you are saying is that a mother must be forced to carry a baby to term no matter the damage to her physical or mental health. I think that is wrong, do you agree?

Overheal

Pete29 wrote: »

Define 'health of the mother'

Can you define in what circumstances you believe abortion could be justified?

Zubeneschamali

Of course it is human.

It is not a human being.

LirW

It is a bit frustrating arguing with the OP because a lot of people have good and valid questions that are completely valid, yet the OP chooses to pray down his own strange mantra of "BUT IT WAS CONSENT BECAUSE THERE IS A TINY RISK OF A PREGNANCY EVEN WHEN YOU'RE ON 3 BC AT THE SAME TIME".

Wrongway1985

I was told I shouldn't be having sex as to consent is consent to have a child, I'm sorry I can't accept those views as usual trail of thought of your typical Atheist.

Apart from him denouncing God nothing in his posts strikes me as identifying with Atheism from my perspective.

Hotblack Desiato

If you believe in an absolute morality you cannot be an atheist, as whatever is the source of your absolute morality is to all intents and purposes your god.

Pete29

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You never posted in the A and A thread on abortion I thought you were anxious to share your unique view?

Sorry, been busy. I do appreciate the invite. I'll have a look now.

mayordenis

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you believe in an absolute morality you cannot be an atheist, as whatever is the source of your absolute morality is to all intents and purposes your god.

notions

Pete29

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you believe in an absolute morality you cannot be an atheist, as whatever is the source of your absolute morality is to all intents and purposes your god.

I don't believe in an absolute, dictated morality. I would consider myself a moral realist. I'm interested in consequentialism, utilitarianism and situational ethics in this context. I think there are moral values which we can extract from the world with reason.

You can be an atheist and believe in an absolute morality of a particular philosophy. Just as long as it's not based on a theistic source.

Pete29

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

I was told I shouldn't be having sex as to consent is consent to have a child, I'm sorry I can't accept those views as usual trail of thought of your typical Atheist.

Apart from him denouncing God nothing in his posts strikes me as identifying with Atheism from my perspective.

I didn't say you shouldn't be having sex. That's up to you. It's my claim that if you're having sex and get pregnant, you're responsible for the new human life you've created.

The biological function of sex is reproduction. To engage in sex, is to engage in the possibility of pregnancy. To consent to that engagement is to accept that risk and its consequences. That's where the choice is.

Calina

Pete29 wrote: »

I didn't say you shouldn't be having sex. That's up to you. It's my claim that if you're having sex and get pregnant, you're responsible for the new human life you've created.

The biological function of sex is reproduction. To engage in sex, is to engage in the possibility of pregnancy. To consent to that engagement is to accept that risk and its consequences. That's where the choice is.

You talk about choice and that is a nice liberty to have.

But you have a loose definition of choice. Women get raped. Men ignore conditions like being asked to wear condoms. Abusive relationships result in pregnancies often to maintain control.

The ones who have choice are men. They will not get pregnant. Women do not have the same liberty. They may get pregnant and they may not have had much choice about it either.

Are you male or female?

Wrongway1985

Pete29 wrote: »

I didn't say you shouldn't be having sex. That's up to you. It's my claim that if you're having sex and get pregnant, you're responsible for the new human life you've created.

The biological function of sex is reproduction. To engage in sex, is to engage in the possibility of pregnancy. To consent to that engagement is to accept that risk and its consequences. That's where the choice is.

Pete29 wrote: »

you're clearly not mature enough to have sex if you're not willing to accept this facts.

Oh believe me I took it as a claim is all don't worry but was more of a definitive statement I thought.

Me personally I couldn't abandon someone, but it's extremely unrealistic to suggest the same can be said for everyone also it is her body women can have terminations and do so without having to inform others of pregnancy. I would not force someone to remain pregnant against their will this seems to be your logic.

If the punishment for an unwanted pregnancy after contraception failed let's say in your understanding is a child must be conceived at all costs, The female has no say even if on life altering medications and such what is your ideal punishment for the male who partook in the same intercourse assuming the sex might have been a temporary arrangement?

Zubeneschamali

Pete29 wrote: »

To engage in sex, is to engage in the possibility of pregnancy. To consent to that engagement is to accept that risk and its consequences. That's where the choice is.

What about the choice to have an abortion, as enshrined in our constitution today? That is dealing with the consequences.

oscarBravo

Pete29 wrote: »

Sorry, been busy. I do appreciate the invite. I'll have a look now.

Under what circumstances would you consider abortion justified?

I understand that you've been busy, but I'm starting to get the impression you're avoiding the question.

If you don't want to answer it, would you mind saying so?

Pete29

oscarBravo wrote: »

Under what circumstances would you consider abortion justified?

I understand that you've been busy, but I'm starting to get the impression you're avoiding the question.

If you don't want to answer it, would you mind saying so?

Sorry, not avoiding it, just have intermittent access to a computer.

When is it justified, if at all?

I don't know. In the case of saving the life of the mother, I'm not sure I would even consider that an abortion, as it's usually not the intention to kill the child, but to provide the medical treatment that will save the mother

I can only be confident as to when it's completely unjustifiable, and that's when the developing infant has been consensually conceived and both mother and child are healthy. This occurs the vast majority of the time.

oscarBravo

Pete29 wrote: »

I can only be confident as to when it's completely unjustifiable, and that's when the developing infant has been consensually conceived and both mother and child are healthy. This occurs the vast majority of the time.

OK, but "let's legislate for the majority of cases and ignore the others" is an unhelpful approach.

Is abortion justified when the foetus hasn't been consensually conceived? If a twelve year old girl is raped by her father, is abortion justified?

If your answer is "no", then stop hiding behind your "vast majority" weasel words. If your answer is "yes", then your belief that a foetus has a right to life is, at best, qualified. If you haven't thought your position through that far, maybe you should think it through before preaching the pro-life gospel.

smokingman

Pete29 wrote: »

Sorry, not avoiding it, just have intermittent access to a computer.

When is it justified, if at all?

I don't know. In the case of saving the life of the mother, I'm not sure I would even consider that an abortion, as it's usually not the intention to kill the child, but to provide the medical treatment that will save the mother

I can only be confident as to when it's completely unjustifiable, and that's when the developing infant has been consensually conceived and both mother and child are healthy. This occurs the vast majority of the time.

So you're sure when you think about it in black and white situations as far as you're concerned but not saying on the grey ones?

Word to the wise gasún, they're all grey.

ancapailldorcha

Posts by troll and responses deleted.

Pete29

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is abortion justified when the foetus hasn't been consensually conceived?

I use my consent argument to show that the right to choice, after pregnancy has occurred, is a misnomer. Choice and the right to use your body however you like existed before hand and is not a good reason to justify abortion.

I can't use my consent argument here, because clearly the mother did not consent to sex in any form. So I have to use a different argument.

The right to life of the fetus to fulfill it's natural potential is still intact. The developing infant is innocent. He/She is not responsible for the crimes of his/her father. Injustice doesn't cancel out injustice. If you came across a thirteen year old who was raped and is currently 6 - 9 months pregnant, would you still recommend an abortion in this instance?

If a child was born to a thirteen year old rape victim, would we look upon that child and think: it is wrong that this child is still currently living. Would we tell children, adolescences and adults, who were conceived in rape, that their existence is wrong and they should have been killed in the womb?

The rape case is clearly a moral dilemma. The developing infant has rights, but the mother had this situation forced upon her in a despicable and violent act.

Take the Utilitarian argument. You're a visitor to a foreign land plagued by civil war. You meet a army general who has taken eleven prisoners captive. He likes visitors and so he offers you a deal: If you kill one of the captives he will let the other ten go. If you don't kill one, he will kill them all.

What do you do?

If you choose to kill one are you effectively saying that one of those people has no right to life? No.

Both outcomes are inherently problematic and can be defined as wrong, but you're not denying anyone's right to life in this circumstance. You're caught in a circumstance where no matter what you choose there's suffering, pain and injustice.

If you abort the pregnancy of thirteen year old rape victim, you're still doing something wrong, even though you're performing a good by sparing that thirteen year old suffering.

stop hiding behind your "vast majority" weasel words.

It's incredibly hypocritical for a pro-choicer to claim I'm using weasel words when whenever you're backed into a corner about the morality of abortion in the vast majority of consensual and healthy cases you shout 'what about rape!' to try and justify your desire for a liberal abortion regime.

Pete29

Pete29 wrote: »

I use my consent argument to show that the right to choice, after pregnancy has occurred, is a misnomer. Choice and the right to use your body however you like existed before hand and is not a good reason to justify abortion.

I can't use my consent argument here, because clearly the mother did not consent to sex in any form. So I have to use a different argument.

If you abort the pregnancy of thirteen year old rape victim, you're still doing something wrong,

Your consent argument doesn't stand up at all. If I consent to sex but use precaution because I don't wish to be pregnant, then I am not consenting to be pregnant. & no matter what way you talk about sex being for procreation etc etc, changes nothing.
You have ignored posters questions when you don't want too answer.
You never answered my question when I asked why you choose the moment of implantation as the point at which the right to life ( in your opinion) of the feotus starts?
Why not earlier? Or later?

The Golden Miller

bubblypop wrote: »

Your consent argument doesn't stand up at all. If I consent to sex but use precaution because I don't wish to be pregnant, then I am not consenting to be pregnant

This is what he said:

To engage in sex, is to engage in the possibility of pregnancy. To consent to that engagement is to accept that risk and its consequences

I fail to understand how this point continues to go over your head time and time again