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]

12357…24

Comments

  • #122
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    That’s great that they decided to have their children and spend that precious time with them, but other couples may choose differently and they should be accommodated.

    We should not open up abortion on demand because of a tiny minority of tragically sad cases.


  • #123
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Pete, are you banned from the other abortion threads or something??


  • #124
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Appledreams15 wrote: »
    So what about the baby that is not going to live outside the womb. That the mother has been told will be dead when she gives birth. Should she be forced to carry this baby for 9 months.

    I read a case, where the woman said she thought she would lose her mind with grief and pain if she had to carry this baby that would not live for 9 months.

    So she went to England for an abortion.

    What do you think of cases like that?


    I think they're sad and I've met people personally in very similar situations and decided to have their children and spending what precious time they had with them. These are a tiny minority of cases.

    I cannot condone the killing of, healthy, innocent, consensually conceived human lives which make up the vast majority of pregnancies.

    Read "in her shoes women of the 8th' page on facebook if you would like. It is a list of cases.

    The majority of cases on it are of women who went to England for an abortion, was due to the baby dying, or that the baby would be born with a serious illness, or that the health of the mother was in danger.


    That is why I am voting yes.

    It is absolutely causing seriojs health issues for women, and in mh opinion, is inhumane as it is.

    No one is flippantly deciding on abortion. There are serious reasons for a need for it (baby dying, baby health defect, one woman on that pages talks about nearly bleeding to death, and they would not help her, and the doctor told her she was at a 20% survival chance and the baby was 50/50).

    There are serious issues going on here.


  • #125
    mjdh1957
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭mjdh1957


    But Ireland already has abortion on demand. It's just been outsourced to other countries. And means that poorer women are disadvantaged.


  • #126
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    God given by any other name...

    Nope. Natural rights can be derived from nature through reason.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Sintend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭Sintend


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The baby cannot survive and thrive and grow without the woman as a willing host.
    We don’t have artificial wombs.
    We don’t have the ability to transfer a pregnancy to another.

    At 12 weeks gestation the fetus is the size of a grape. At that point there is no conscience, sentience or personality or any other attribute we find in humans.
    At that point, while it is completely reliant on her, it should be up to her what happens to it.

    She should not have to sacrifice her bodily autonomy against her will to gestate a pregnancy she does not want just to keep you and your morals happy.
    Pregnancy is the natural result of sex and without interference the child will continue to grow and develop. You want to take it's right to life away because you view it as an inconvenience rather than a life with a lifetime of possibilities. 9 months of inconvenience is very little compared to a lifetime of possibilities.


  • #128
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    mjdh1957 wrote: »
    But Ireland already has abortion on demand. It's just been outsourced to other countries. And means that poorer women are disadvantaged.


    1/19 abortions occur in Ireland

    1/5 in the UK.

    I would rather minimize abortion than open the flood gate to UK levels.


  • #129
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    ligerdub wrote: »
    I might not be, but somebody else might. Let's say it's my belief that if i see a nice wallet in somebodys coat that I'd quite like it and decide to put it in my coat.

    I mean great for me if there's no consequences for that right? You might think that's great too, but the vast majority of people don't.

    That's why we have a society.....so that collectively we decide what we want. You might not like it, but these are the sort of moral codes that are written down into things called laws.

    I'm not on either side of this debate, but I find the facile stuff from the Yes side about as bad as the (minor) "God will be angry if you have an abortion" from the religious zealot No side.

    I'm against **** arguments primarily, that's my side.
    What if the wallet was poisoning you but you weren't by law allowed to throw it away?


  • #130
    mjdh1957
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭mjdh1957


    Pete29 wrote: »
    1/19 abortions occur in Ireland

    1/5 in the UK.

    I would rather minimize abortion than open the flood gate to UK levels.

    Your vote and opinion on this is only as important as mine so we shall see come the 25th May.


  • #131
    ligerdub
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    LirW wrote: »
    It is somewhat relevant because crisis pregnancies or women genuinely not being able to afford their children have a significantly higher chance to depend on social welfare.
    The issue isn't just as simple as saying, if you're poor, don't have sex.

    I broadly agree with your point if made on a standalone basis i.e. that people with low incomes and low standard of living are faced with greater difficulties should they become pregnant in an unplanned basis.

    However, and this point isn't aimed at you, I cannot stand over the link between the people who are opposed to abortions to those who are opposed to large-scale supports of certain social support mechanisms. It is a throwaway mark and not relevant to the argument. The argument can be debated without such tactics.

    That argument is also far too complex to link that chain. Even if it were a fair one, there are all sorts of other factors to consider there (and I don't want to drag this off-topic), such as the actual potential harm to certain communities by turning them into locations of cultural acceptance of living on welfare by design. A sort of malaise and stagnation that can happen in a wider setting which can be quite dangerous. That is A point, not a statement of fact, and just one reason by that shouldn't be used to throw scorn at those opposed to such programs, let alone link opponents of high level social programs to pro-life advocates.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    Sintend wrote: »
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The baby cannot survive and thrive and grow without the woman as a willing host.
    We don’t have artificial wombs.
    We don’t have the ability to transfer a pregnancy to another.

    At 12 weeks gestation the fetus is the size of a grape. At that point there is no conscience, sentience or personality or any other attribute we find in humans.
    At that point, while it is completely reliant on her, it should be up to her what happens to it.

    She should not have to sacrifice her bodily autonomy against her will to gestate a pregnancy she does not want just to keep you and your morals happy.
    Pregnancy is the natural result of sex and without interference the child will continue to grow and develop. You want to take it's right to life away because you view it as an inconvenience rather than a life with a lifetime of possibilities. 9 months of inconvenience is very little compared to a lifetime of possibilities.

    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?


  • #133
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Appledreams15 wrote: »
    Read "in her shoes women of the 8th' page on facebook if you would like. It is a list of cases.

    The majority of cases on it are of women who went to England for an abortion, was due to the baby dying, or that the baby would be born with a serious illness, or that the health of the mother was in danger.


    That is why I am voting yes.

    It is absolutely causing seriojs health issues for women, and in mh opinion, is inhumane as it is.

    No one is flippantly deciding on abortion. There are serious reasons for a need for it (baby dying, baby health defect, one woman on that pages talks about nearly bleeding to death, and they would not help her, and the doctor told her she was at a 20% survival chance and the baby was 50/50).

    There are serious issues going on here.

    Forgive me for not taking facebook comments as a serious source of statistical information


  • #134
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    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.


  • #135
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Nope. Natural rights can be derived from nature through reason.

    I see no reason for a 7 week old feotus to have the same right to life as me.
    I see no reason why I should have to be dying to get medical treatment when pregnant.
    Do you think you should be denied medical treatment because of soemone else?


  • #136
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Appledreams15 wrote: »
    Read "in her shoes women of the 8th' page on facebook if you would like. It is a list of cases.

    The majority of cases on it are of women who went to England for an abortion, was due to the baby dying, or that the baby would be born with a serious illness, or that the health of the mother was in danger.


    That is why I am voting yes.

    It is absolutely causing seriojs health issues for women, and in mh opinion, is inhumane as it is.

    No one is flippantly deciding on abortion. There are serious reasons for a need for it (baby dying, baby health defect, one woman on that pages talks about nearly bleeding to death, and they would not help her, and the doctor told her she was at a 20% survival chance and the baby was 50/50).

    There are serious issues going on here.

    Forgive me for not taking facebook comments as a serious source of statistical information

    It is not Facebook comments. It is a Facebook page for the referendum, set up for women who have had abortions to tell their stories.

    What have you got against Facebook? It is well respected. People carry out political campaigns on it.


  • #137
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    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.

    No. She consented to sex with a condom.

    She is now pregnant against her choice.


  • #138
    gerard2210
    Registered Users Posts: 547 ✭✭✭gerard2210


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Haven't decided 100% yet, am still on the fence on it.

    However, I've not yet received a polling card, and am.Wondering if i should have received it by now?

    I moved house last year, so am wondering if that has anything to Do with it.
    Polling cards came into the system late last week. Postman has until 22/5 to deliver them. Most posties should have them delivered by end of this week.
    But check the register online to see if you're on it at your old/new address or both. You don't have to have the polling card you go along with I.D if you're on the register.


  • #139
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Sintend wrote: »
    Pregnancy is the natural result of sex and without interference the child will continue to grow and develop. You want to take it's right to life away because you view it as an inconvenience rather than a life with a lifetime of possibilities. 9 months of inconvenience is very little compared to a lifetime of possibilities.

    No it isn’t. Women are only fertile a few days per month.
    Without interference miscarriage, stillbirth and FFA can still occur.
    Stop dismissing the serious impact pregnancy has on women. It’s tough even for women who want their babies.
    It’s a big ask to insist a woman carries and raises a child she does not want just to suit your morals.
    Unless this pregnancy specifically affects you I don’t understand why you think you get to have any input or an opinion on it.
    It’s none of your business what I do with my uterus.


  • #140
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Pete29 wrote:
    Nope. Natural rights can be derived from nature through reason.

    Ah. Appeal to nature. Got it.


  • #141
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Appledreams15 wrote: »
    No. She consented to sex with a condom.

    She is now pregnant against her choice.


    There is still a possibility of pregnancy even while wearing the condom. There is a risk the condom will fail. She and her partner accept this when they both consent.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Pete29 wrote: »
    There is still a possibility of pregnancy even while wearing the condom. There is a risk the condom will fail. She and her partner accept this when they both consent.

    You must have little regard for human life if you would force an innocent baby into the life of an unwilling mother who doesn’t want him.
    Hardly in a baby’s best interests for that to happen.


  • #143
    CardinalJ
    Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭CardinalJ


    Pete29 wrote:
    Yes, because she consented to the sex. It would be the same case if he was wearing a condom and it failed.


    Ah for fúck sake. She didnt consent to what happened.


  • #144
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    No it isn’t. Women are only fertile a few days per month.
    Without interference miscarriage, stillbirth and FFA can still occur.
    Stop dismissing the serious impact pregnancy has on women. It’s tough even for women who want their babies.
    It’s a big ask to insist a woman carries and raises a child she does not want just to suit your morals.
    Unless this pregnancy specifically affects you I don’t understand why you think you get to have any input or an opinion on it.
    It’s none of your business what I do with my uterus.

    It is my business when you want to kill an innocent candidate for humanity. It not just about you any more. There's another human life involved. It's not a private matter, it's a social question. It's my business just like it's my business if I can hear my next door neighbor threatening to kill his wife.


  • #145
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Pete29 wrote: »
    There is still a possibility of pregnancy even while wearing the condom. There is a risk the condom will fail. She and her partner accept this when they both consent.

    You must have little regard for human life if you would force an innocent baby into the life of an unwilling mother who doesn’t want him.
    Hardly in a baby’s best interests for that to happen.

    I see some women around Ireland shouting and screaming at children. They are not able and the child is not wanted. That child is in for for a terrible life.


  • #146
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    CardinalJ wrote: »
    Ah for fúck sake. She didnt consent to what happened.


    She consented to the possibility of becoming pregnant by consenting. Condom or not.


  • #147
    Sintend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭Sintend


    Pete29 wrote: »
    It is my business when you want to kill an innocent candidate for humanity. It not just about you any more. There's another human life involved. It's not a private matter, it's a social question. It's my business just like it's my business if I can hear my next door neighbor threatening to kill his wife.
    Exactly someone gets it!


  • #148
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Appledreams15 wrote: »
    I see some women around Ireland shouting and screaming at children. They are not able and the child is not wanted. That child is in for for a terrible life.

    Yet you don't think you have the right to kill them unless they're in the womb.


  • #149
    CardinalJ
    Registered Users Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭CardinalJ


    Pete29 wrote:
    She consented to the possibility of becoming pregnant by consenting. Condom or not.


    So If I told you that there was a 1% risk of something but there was actually an 80% chance of it, then it's on you?


  • #150
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    Pete29 wrote: »
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    No it isn’t. Women are only fertile a few days per month.
    Without interference miscarriage, stillbirth and FFA can still occur.
    Stop dismissing the serious impact pregnancy has on women. It’s tough even for women who want their babies.
    It’s a big ask to insist a woman carries and raises a child she does not want just to suit your morals.
    Unless this pregnancy specifically affects you I don’t understand why you think you get to have any input or an opinion on it.
    It’s none of your business what I do with my uterus.

    It is my business when you want to kill an innocent candidate for humanity. It not just about you any more. There's another human life involved. It's not a private matter, it's a social question. It's my business just like it's my business if I can hear my next door neighbor threatening to kill his wife.

    What about the incredibly low rape conviction rate in Ireland. We had the accolade of the lowest conviction rate in Europe at one point recently. Is that your business too?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Pete29 wrote: »
    It is my business when you want to kill an innocent candidate for humanity. It not just about you any more. There's another human life involved. It's not a private matter, it's a social question. It's my business just like it's my business if I can hear my next door neighbor threatening to kill his wife.

    No it isn’t. I can hop on a plane to the UK as is my constitutional right and have an abortion and there’s nothing you can do about it.

    Why is a pre 12 week old fetus of equal worth to a born woman?

    Are you saying that if your wife was having treatment for cancer, and found out she was pregnant, you would be happy for the treatment to stop? Even though it could possibly kill your wife? Because that’s the reality you are forcing on other people’s wives.


Advertisement