Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

antiskeptic

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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.

Varadkar has about turned on his position. He once considered it two lives of equal value and no abortion on demand. Dont admire a man who flip flops just becausr he happens to be flopping in your direction.

Pete29

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.

You know for a fact the function of sex is reproduction. Any consensual engagement in sex is accepting risk of pregnancy and therefore consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. You can kick and scream like a spoiled child all you want, but there's no escaping this fact.

& no matter what way you talk about sex being for procreation etc etc, changes nothing.

Sigh

This response pretty much sums up the modern liberal attitude towards sex and pregnancy. It is an inherently self centered, narcissistic and irresponsible attitude in which people believe they are free to do whatever they wish, but they are not responsible for the consequences of their actions, even when cautioned before hand.

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?

Implantation is the moment when the fertilized embryo obtains it's right to life because it is now on track to becoming a new born infant. Not before, because you can fertilize an embryo in a petry dish and it won't become a human infant.

oscarBravo

Pete29 wrote: »

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.

Yeah, I'm no clearer. Are you arguing that abortion is acceptable in that case, or that it's not?

oscarBravo

Pete29 wrote: »

You know for a fact the function of sex is reproduction. Any consensual engagement in sex is accepting risk of pregnancy and therefore consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. You can kick and scream like a spoiled child all you want, but there's no escaping this fact.

You have a rather narrow definition of "sex".

This response pretty much sums up the modern liberal attitude towards sex and pregnancy. It is an inherently self centered, narcissistic and irresponsible attitude in which people believe they are free to do whatever they wish, but they are not responsible for the consequences of their actions, even when cautioned before hand.

I'm reminded of the tongue-in-cheek definition of Puritanism: the haunting feeling that someone, somewhere is having a good time.

DarkScar

Atheism is perfectly compatible with a no vote. If you think a foetus becomes a person at some stage during pregnancy then it is entirely logical to expect that life to be protected. One side appears to say it is always a person and the other that it is never a person. IMO neither are true.

Junadl

Just want to say Pete29. Well done for holding and sticking with your beliefs..

A Jew, a slave, everyone said they weren't human. Some people voting Yes are agreeing an unborn baby is not human. So you will never get through to them as they believe the unborn are not human and that is how they can justify ending their life.

You're not allowed to be emotive but as humans our instinct should override ANY selfish motives to abortion.

A mother and father do not own the baby they have created. Just as a slave master doesn't own a slave and can do whatever they want with them

These Yes voters do not give one ounce of compassion for the baby who will lose their life. It says something about society that thinks killing the unborn is progressive.

Remember not long ago children were to be seen and not heard. Now they are not even to be born.

People don't realise how disconnected from nature they have become and the natural life cycle.

They think going clubbing is more important than raising their own child. The instincts are being wiped out!

SusieBlue

Junadl wrote: »

They think going clubbing is more important than raising their own child. The instincts are being wiped out!

What a nasty thing to say. Sounds like you have more of an issue with women than you do with abortion tbh.

Junadl

Also the Yes voters saying you can't have cancer treatment when pregnant is a big lie. The Yes side are full of lies to put fear into people.

You can be treated for cancer, you can have a termination if there is a health risk including risk of suicide

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

Varadkar has about turned on his position. He once considered it two lives of equal value and no abortion on demand. Dont admire a man who flip flops just becausr he happens to be flopping in your direction.

He probably "maturely reflected" on the issue and came to a "better understanding" of it much like Coveny.
Unfortunately our leadership aren't able to lead, just go with whatever wind will blow them back into power at the next general election.

oscarBravo

Junadl wrote: »

...you can have a termination if there is a health risk...

No, you can't.

SusieBlue

Junadl wrote: »

Also the Yes voters saying you can't have cancer treatment when pregnant is a big lie. The Yes side are full of lies to put fear into people.

You can be treated for cancer, you can have a termination if there is a health risk including risk of suicide

I’m in that exact situation right now, getting treatment to prevent cervical cancer and I’ve been told by my gynaecologist that if I get pregnant I can’t have any more treatment.
So you are wrong. Some cancers are treatable but many others aren’t.

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

I’m in that exact situation right now, getting treatment to prevent cervical cancer and I’ve been told by my gynaecologist that if I get pregnant I can’t have any more treatment.
So you are wrong. Some cancers are treatable but many others aren’t.

Might I ask how long does this treatment phase lasts?

Mrsmum

Sin City wrote: »

Im on the fence too , but leaning towards yes

Obviously I would be against abortion on demand and I still think its a life

On the other hand my beliefs should not infringe on someone else freedom

I can only think logically and philiosphically

Im never going to be the one in this position but my daughter might

So im probably going to vote Yes

I see this from people alot and my genuine question is when did choice become more important than life ?

SusieBlue

antiskeptic wrote: »

Might I ask how long does this treatment phase lasts?

Until a colposcopy finds the cells to be of normal quality with no sequencing changes.
So long as there are abnormal cells I’ll be getting treatment.
I received my first prognosis of abnormal cells in February 2017, but the severity of the issue has increased over the last 3 months.

Junadl

SusieBlue wrote: »

What a nasty thing to say. Sounds like you have more of an issue with women than you do with abortion tbh.

I have come across women on these forums who sound like they hate kids. So if anyone is nasty they are. They have said they aren't there just for breeding which is a nasty way to look at bringing a life into the world.

Junadl

SusieBlue wrote: »

Until a colposcopy finds the cells to be of normal quality with no sequencing changes.
So long as there are abnormal cells I’ll be getting treatment.
I received my first prognosis of abnormal cells in February 2017, but the severity of the issue has increased over the last 3 months.

I'm very sorry to hear this. My mom is ill with cancer right now. Diagnosed a few years ago so I know the journey you are on.
I understand why a woman would want a termination in this circumstance but the 8th is there to keep the baby safe, not at the expense of the mothers life though.

Nody

Pete29 wrote: »

You know for a fact the function of sex is reproduction. Any consensual engagement in sex is accepting risk of pregnancy and therefore consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. You can kick and scream like a spoiled child all you want, but there's no escaping this fact.

Really? Funny how that is simply not true with animals nor humans. In fact today there is NO reason to have sex if you want to get pregnant as you can get a much higher chance through artificial means instead. Hence the biological function, which even among animals are not used for reproduction only, has multiple purposes including simply enjoyment. This is also why for example multiple species have been found in gay relationships which have zero chance of producing an offspring. Hence your primary argument has already been proven to be wrong; there are other reasons than offspring to have sex.

This response pretty much sums up the modern liberal attitude towards sex and pregnancy. It is an inherently self centered, narcissistic and irresponsible attitude in which people believe they are free to do whatever they wish, but they are not responsible for the consequences of their actions, even when cautioned before hand.

Eating to much to become fat is also a self centred, narcissistic and irresponsible attitude then I take it? So should all people who are fat simply be refused health care because of it? Same deal and causes you claim after all so if it is good enough for one group it better be good the next. Same of course also applies to people who smoke, drink, do drugs etc. as well.

Implantation is the moment when the fertilized embryo obtains it's right to life because it is now on track to becoming a new born infant. Not before, because you can fertilize an embryo in a petry dish and it won't become a human infant.

And yet the body rejects 67% of all those embroys by week 12; how is that any different from doing it manually?

antiskeptic

Mrsmum wrote: »

I see this from people alot and my genuine question is when did choice become more important than life ?

When people decided the life in the womb hadnt equal value - obvously. Whether they fell for the trojan horse of difficult cases or simply diminished life in the womb full stop is hard to tell.

If only the former they can vote No and await a more nuanced referendum proposal.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

If only the former they can vote No and await a more nuanced referendum proposal.

We don't need a more nuanced referendum proposal. The proposed wording allows for all the nuance in the world to be implemented by the legislature.

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

Until a colposcopy finds the cells to be of normal quality with no sequencing changes.
So long as there are abnormal cells I’ll be getting treatment.
I received my first prognosis of abnormal cells in February 2017, but the severity of the issue has increased over the last 3 months.

Thanks.

As I pointed out sometime ago there's the dilemma of the sensitivity of your circumstances and the fact that you've introduced your case into the argument for Yes.

You appear willing to open yourself to questioning so I'll progress accordingly.

Can I ask how many treatment phases there has been since prognosis and now. And what duration have these phases had.

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

We don't need a more nuanced referendum proposal. The proposed wording allows for all the nuance in the world to be implemented by the legislature.

That requires a trust of politicians. A nuanced referendum allows for alteration to permit hard cases without the poosibility of the soft.

blanch152

Junadl wrote: »

I have come across women on these forums who sound like they hate kids. So if anyone is nasty they are. They have said they aren't there just for breeding which is a nasty way to look at bringing a life into the world.

That is a perfectly reasonable thing for a woman to say in response to some of the misogynist commentary around the subject of the 8th.


And I am a man, by the way.

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

That requires a trust of politicians. A nuanced referendum allows for alteration to permit hard cases without the poosibility of the soft.

Then why aren't we having referenda on everything then?

It is a really stupid response to say it requires a trust of politicians. Nearly everything in the country requires the trust of politicians.

It does help me understand the mentality of the NO voter. They don't trust women and they don't trust politicians.

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

Varadkar has about turned on his position. He once considered it two lives of equal value and no abortion on demand. Dont admire a man who flip flops just becausr he happens to be flopping in your direction.

I see a man whose views have grown and matured through life experience who is not afraid to admit he was previously wrong.

Whatever your views of his position on the issue, you have to admire him for that.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

Then why aren't we having referenda on everything then?

Because not everything requires alteration to the constitution. And not everything is a central as deciding on rights to life or not.

It is a really stupid response to say it requires a trust of politicians. Nearly everything in the country requires the trust of politicians.

The folk who figured enough was enough with water charges dont agree you.

It does help me understand the mentality of the NO voter. They don't trust women and they don't trust politicians.

If it were men only who decided upon an abortion or not I wouldnt trust them either.

You read Leos flip flop. And you reckon him trustworthy ☺

SusieBlue

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks.

As I pointed out sometime ago there's the dilemma of the sensitivity of your circumstances and the fact that you've introduced your case into the argument for Yes.

You appear willing to open yourself to questioning so I'll progress accordingly.

Can I ask how many treatment phases there has been since prognosis and now. And what duration have these phases had.

I don’t want to derail the thread, but briefly, it initiated when a routine smear came back as abnormal.
I had a colposcopy which gave the result of low level cell changes.
They just wanted to observe at that point so I was invited back for repeat colposcopies every 3 months to ensure no progression - sometimes these things sort themselves out and no treatment is needed.
That went on for just over a year. I had a routine colposcopy in March but this time it revealed high grade genotyping cell changes.
So a huge chance from my last test, which had been in December.
Since then I’ve had two rounds of laser treatment, one session per month.
This usually solves the problem so at my next appointment, if the abnormalities are still there, I’ll be discussing the next steps.
I don’t think I’ll be getting any more laser therapy but I have no idea what’s next on the list.
I’m trying not to even think about it.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

I see a man whose views have grown and matured through life experience who is not afraid to admit he was previously wrong

.

You don't figure life in the womb fundamentally equal one year and about turn a few years later. That's a philosophical shift extraordinaire. All the science was there to convince him the life was just a clump of cells -him a doctor and all. Yet he held it life equal.

Whatever your views of his position on the issue, you have to admire him for that.

If he flopped back this week you'd have his guts for garters!

Calina

Mrsmum wrote: »

Sin City wrote: »

Im on the fence too , but leaning towards yes

Obviously I would be against abortion on demand and I still think its a life

On the other hand my beliefs should not infringe on someone else freedom

I can only think logically and philiosphically

Im never going to be the one in this position but my daughter might

So im probably going to vote Yes

I see this from people alot and my genuine question is when did choice become more important than life ?

It isn't. The question is whether the pregnant woman's life is equally important or exceeds the importance of an unborn potential. Woman's life not choice.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

That requires a trust of politicians.

That's the nature of representative democracy. If you don't trust politicians, then the logical conclusion is to scrap the Oireachtas and move the entire body of legislation into the Constitution, which would be a self-evidently stupid thing to do.

Complex questions of hard cases in law don't belong in the Constitution. That's what legislation is for.

Junadl

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a perfectly reasonable thing for a woman to say in response to some of the misogynist commentary around the subject of the 8th.


And I am a man, by the way.

No it's not a reasonable thing to say. It's the 'kids should be seen and not heard' mentality. As a kid you would think these women were witch like.