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]

1568101124

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭corny


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    I already answered that too.
    No it would not be ok to kill a baby one week before they were born.
    No one is arguing in favour of that. At that gestation, an early delivery happens and the woman is induced and the baby is born.
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    I already answered that. When I was born.

    And for the record, the government don’t even consider babies stillborn before 23 weeks to have existed.
    No birth or death certificates are issued.
    The government don’t even consider them to be people before that point, and that’s for wanted pregnancies.

    You've no right to life before birth (the logical extension of the bit in bold) but its not ok to abort 1 week before birth. Isn't that a contradictory view?


  • Registered Users Posts: 294 ✭✭hollymartins


    I'll be voting yes. For many years I was pro life - throughout college and my early twenties. However I've experienced pregnancy a number of times in my thirties, the first ended in a miscarriage and I had the realisation that for many people my right to life was equal to the bloody clots and tissue I had just spent many hours passing while curled up on my bathroom floor.

    Was that loss the same as someone's child dying? Not to me it wasn't, I would not equate my miscarriages to my niece or nephew dying. What I lost was the possibility of a child.

    I have gone on to have two babies, pregnancy is tough even if you are carrying a much wanted baby and I think it would be cruel to expect anyone to continue a pregnancy against their will.


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


    corny wrote: »
    You've no right to life before birth (the logical extension of the bit in bold) but its not ok to abort 1 week before birth. Isn't that a contradictory view?

    Before the 8th was put into the constitution there was no right to life for fetuses and babies.
    Abortions didn’t happen a week before birth then, and it won’t happen if the referendum passes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I am voting YES.

    The 8th Amendment is a legal abomination. No matter your view on abortion, it should be taken out of the Constitution so that matters relating to abortion and the regulation of it should be dealt with by the legislature and not the courts. All of those families who have been put through lengthy court cases by the 8th have my sympathies.

    As for what happens next, read the Referendum Commission leaflet. It is clear - nothing happens until the law is changed. The Government are in a minority, there could be an election, no change is guaranteed.

    Finally, the audience tonight on the Claire Byrne show absolutely disgusted me. Both sides of the audience were clapping and cheering their respective spokespeople with the pro-lifers particularly bad with their whooping and hollering, making themselves sound like backwood hicks (even though I know they aren't). The rudeness of the pro-life spokespeople constantly interrupting and shouting didn't add anything. Anyone who takes this issue seriously couldn't take them seriously tonight.

    I didn't hear any pro lifers accusing the other view of being liars.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    corny wrote: »
    You've no right to life before birth (the logical extension of the bit in bold) but its not ok to abort 1 week before birth. Isn't that a contradictory view?

    Not at all. For example, if you define viability the point at which there is a right to life, then there is no contradiction.

    Alternatively, there is a balance of rights between the right to life of the unborn, the right to life of the mother, the right to bodily integrity of the mother, the right to health of the mother, and that balancing these rights at different stages of a pregnancy results in different conclusions.

    Those are two quite legitimate opinions to hold which mean those views are not contradictory.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I didn't hear any pro lifers accusing the other view of being liars.

    You need to read my post again, I found the behaviour of both sides unacceptable with the pro-life side more than marginally worse.

    Technically point-scoring that one side accused the other of lying (and the accusation of lying may well be true), is a clear example of trivialising the debate.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 35 Viewpoint2


    Look the HSE have caused deaths to babies in the maternity all over the country, they have caused deaths and upset to women in the cervical screening and much much more! But much wants more now all of the political parties not one of them are prolife! Yet these same parties are trying to appear to take the moral ground over the cervical screening controversy that has rocked the HSE to blood. So its amazing that despite the low few weeks that has passed with the ongoing cervical screening controversy where the story continues to grow more that not one policitial party is on the prolife side irregardless of which way we vote! Policiticial parties should have abstained on this and leave the citizens to decide. Even an atheist would probably say God should step in at this stage its unfair the onesided debate on this!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    blanch152 wrote: »
    You need to read my post again, I found the behaviour of both sides unacceptable with the pro-life side more than marginally worse.

    Technically point-scoring that one side accused the other of lying (and the accusation of lying may well be true), is a clear example of trivialising the debate.

    I think that who was marginally worse depends on your point of view

    Boylan saying that a 12 week old foetus wasn't fully formed appears to be a lie to me.
    I read the opposite sitting in the rotunda with my wife for her appointments


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I think that who was marginally worse depends on your point of view

    Boylan saying that a 12 week old foetus wasn't fully formed appears to be a lie to me.
    I read the opposite sitting in the rotunda with my wife for her appointments

    Well sorry if I take the views of an experienced doctor over some Catholic hospital leaflet you read.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Pete29 wrote: »
    I'm an Atheist and I'll be voting No in the upcoming referendum
    And I'm co-mod of the Atheism and Agnosticism forum and you've never posted A+A.

    Do drop by as you seem to be in a minority of one.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Well sorry if I take the views of an experienced doctor over some Catholic hospital leaflet you read.

    And another experienced doctor gave an opposing view.
    I don't happen to know if the leaflet was influenced by the RCC but I would hope it's accurate as it would open a whole load of questions as to the ability of the medical practitioners within its walls who made it available to know what they're talking about.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    robindch wrote: »
    And I'm co-mod of the Atheism and Agnosticism forum and you've never posted A+A.

    Do drop by as you seem to be in a minority of one.

    Do you have a point to make other than you're a mod in a different forum?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭corny


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Before the 8th was put into the constitution there was no right to life for fetuses and babies.
    Abortions didn’t happen a week before birth then, and it won’t happen if the referendum passes.

    That doesn't address the point. You said your right to life begins at birth. Logically that means you've no right to life before birth yet when challenged you said it would be wrong to abort 1 week prior to birth. On what grounds is it wrong if you've no right to life at 39 weeks?

    I've no firm opinion either way btw. Your view just seems entirely contradictory to me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    And another experienced doctor gave an opposing view.
    I don't happen to know if the leaflet was influenced by the RCC but I would hope it's accurate as it would open a whole load of questions as to the ability of the medical practitioners within its walls who made it available to know what they're talking about.


    Wait a minute, a respected doctor gives a clear medical opinion on a subject on the national airwaves, yet I am expected to disregard that because of something you remember you read in a Catholic hospital leaflet some years ago.


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think that who was marginally worse depends on your point of view

    Boylan saying that a 12 week old foetus wasn't fully formed appears to be a lie to me.
    I read the opposite sitting in the rotunda with my wife for her appointments

    well, I had an ectopic pregnancy at approx 7 weeks, & none of the litrerature I was given said anything like that!


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


    corny wrote: »
    That doesn't address the point. You said your right to life begins at birth. Logically that means you've no right to life before birth yet when challenged you said it would be wrong to abort 1 week prior to birth. On what grounds is it wrong if you've no right to life at 39 weeks?

    I've no firm opinion either way btw. Your view just seems entirely contradictory to me.

    Because one week before birth the baby can be born and live. It has many attributes that we relate to humanity, sentience, consciousness, personality, etc.
    Remove a <12 week old fetus from the womb and it cannot survive. It isn’t conscious or sentient.
    I hate this argument, but it really is just a bunch of cells. It is in no way equal to a third trimester baby, or a born woman.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭corny


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Because one week before birth the baby can be born and live. It has many attributes that we relate to humanity, sentience, consciousness, personality, etc.
    Remove a <12 week old fetus from the womb and it cannot survive. It isn’t conscious or sentient.
    I hate this argument, but it really is just a bunch of cells. It is in no way equal to a third trimester baby, or a born woman.

    So when asked when did you gain the right to life you should have said 'when i gain the attributes that we relate to humanity' not when i'm born.

    As i said i'm not strident either way but the bit in bold is a flimsy position to cling to. Its a wilful denial of the almost certain future in which the foetus will gain sentience. It will happen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Wait a minute, a respected doctor gives a clear medical opinion on a subject on the national airwaves, yet I am expected to disregard that because of something you remember you read in a Catholic hospital leaflet some years ago.
    And a member of the same institute gave a contrary viewpoint on national airwaves.


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


    corny wrote: »
    So when asked when did you gain the right to life you should have said 'when i gain the attributes that we relate to humanity' not when i'm born.

    As i said i'm not strident either way but the bit in bold is a flimsy position to cling to. Its a wilful denial of the almost certain future in which the foetus will gain sentience. It will happen.

    But regardless of my own personal opinion, all babies are given their rights when they are born. That’s factually correct.
    I brought up sentience and consciousness when asked what the difference was between aborting a <12 week old fetus and killing a baby 10 minutes before birth. The difference is that 10 minutes before birth a baby has all the faculties we attribute to being human.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Before the 8th was put into the constitution there was no right to life for fetuses and babies.

    That's incorrect. In several cases the SC had discussed the right to life of the unborn - Ryan v AG and G v An Bord Uchtala - and though they never enumerated it (it was unnecessary to do so in the context of abortion seeing as it was illegal to terminate a pregnancy anyway) it was pretty clear that they believed the right to life extended to all forms of human life, not just that which exists outside the womb.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Do you have a point to make other than you're a mod in a different forum?

    It doesn't seem so. It seems like they're making the 'oh you can't be X because you don't post in a forum related to X, therefore we shouldn't take the views of this person credibly' point. Pretty weak imo.


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


    That's incorrect. In several cases the SC had discussed the right to life of the unborn - Ryan v AG and G v An Bord Uchtala - and though they never enumerated it (it was unnecessary to do so in the context of abortion seeing as it was illegal to terminate a pregnancy anyway) it was pretty clear that they believed the right to life extended to all forms of human life, not just that which exists outside the womb.

    It’s not incorrect. Before the 8th was voted in the unborn did not have a constitutional right to life. That is a fact.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    No, clearly there are many who want to force their moral view of the world unto others - religious and non religious.

    Why not vote to let each decide according to their own moral conscience? Why do you want to decide for others, that is the question you should face.

    You're missing the entire point of why people are voting no.

    Their point is that you nor anyone else deserves the right to say whether someone else should live or die.

    It's not about 'deciding according to one's own moral conscience' - it's about society (in this case, Irish society) declaring that in respecting the very existence of an unborn child, we believe that in most cases it has the right to live just like any other human does.

    Unless evidence can be shown as to that either:
    a) the unborn is not a person, and as such should not have a right to life
    or
    b) that this person is so beneath us that we - as born persons - reserve the right to deny their existence

    - then there is no conclusive argument in favour of repealing Art.40.3.3.

    I have yet to have a single person prove either of these points to me, and as such can see no reason why Art.40.3.3. should not exist in the Constitution.

    The whole debate thus far has been disappointing to say the least, as there has been no real discussion of the ethical and moral issues here - which are at the forefront of a constitutional debate. I must say I am disappointed at the sheer lack of academic discussion on this issue in the media, and online.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    I didn't hear any pro lifers accusing the other view of being liars.


    Matty McGarth a pro lifer as you called them accused Dr Boylan of being a liar repeatedly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    It’s not incorrect. Before the 8th was voted in the unborn did not have a constitutional right to life. That is a fact.

    That is not a fact.

    In McGee v AG, Mr. Justice Walsh clearly stated: 'Any action on the part of either the husband and wife or of the State to limit family sizes by endangering or destroying human life must necessarily not only be an offence against the common good but also against the guaranteed personal rights of the human life in question'

    G v An Bord Uchtala, he also stated:'The right to life necessarily implies the right to be born... It lies not in the power of the parent who has the primary natural rights and duties in respect of the child to exercise them in such as way as... to terminate its existence'

    Do your bloody research before making such erroneous statements.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,186 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Asked if she would like to state her reasons for intending to do so she stated that a foetus was a human life. She was pressed on this by a yes campaigner, but she made the analogy that (forgive me if this isn't word for word) that a foetus had a heartbeat, and if someone can be officially pronounced dead due to a lack of a heartbeat, why did this not apply to a foetus?

    Well, that's a pretty dumb analogy tbh. A beating heart does not mean you are still alive if your brain is dead. Cardiac cells in a petri dish will beat. The heartbeat means nothing but it's a nice emotive hook to hang a weak argument on.

    © 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd



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


    That is not a fact.

    In McGee v AG, Mr. Justice Walsh clearly stated: 'Any action on the part of either the husband and wife or of the State to limit family sizes by endangering or destroying human life must necessarily not only be an offence against the common good but also against the guaranteed personal rights of the human life in question'

    G v An Bord Uchtala, he also stated:'The right to life necessarily implies the right to be born... It lies not in the power of the parent who has the primary natural rights and duties in respect of the child to exercise them in such as way as... to terminate its existence'

    Do your bloody research before making such erroneous statements.

    Ok, can you please quote exactly where in the constitution it said that the unborn had a right to life before the 8th amendment was introduced?

    I’m pretty confident I’ve done more research on this topic than you have if that post is anything to go by.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Ok, can you please quote exactly where in the constitution it said that the unborn had a right to life before the 8th amendment was introduced?

    I’m pretty confident I’ve done more research on this topic than you have if that post is anything to go by.

    Read Article 40.3.1 and Ryan v AG - where the Supreme Court confirmed there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution. Both of Justice Walsh' statements were made on this basis.

    The law is more than what you read in statutes and provisions - what happens in the Courts (and most importantly, in the Supreme Court) is never to be taken lightly.

    Also, I think it's laughable that you think you know more about this than me. Read the bloody law before blathering on about stuff you have no clue about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,186 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Do your bloody research before making such erroneous statements.

    The Supreme Court ruled recently that the 'unborn' has no rights outside of the 8th amendment.

    © 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    The Supreme Court ruled recently that the 'unborn' has no rights outside of the 8th amendment.

    Yes, and I never said anything to the contrary. The M case was to do with ancillary rights, not Art.40.3.3. itself.


Advertisement