Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Wrongway1985

OP one of your first posts on boards refers to Religion leaving cert project odd subject to take for an atheist; even so it shows you heavily indulged in it.

I'm an atheist and shall be voting yes, strangely enough I don't see babies as a gift from God! They are gifts though and should be cherished and welcomed into the world to loving surroundings alas that ideal outcome sometimes can't be the case.

I don't see the moment of conception as the beginning of life and comparisons to that and a newborn are...there is none.

If the majority are honest they don't either as more than most will not announce pregnancy just after conception for obvious reasons and in some cases that may even be they simply don't want to continue pregnancy for a multitude of reasons.

SusieBlue

MightyMandarin wrote: »

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.

Unenumerated rights does not equal constitutional protection for all unborn life before the 8th was put in place.
It was one judges assessment of it. So yeah, you’re wrong.

I’m saying before the 8th was voted in, the unborn had no specific right to life in our constitution. You are saying otherwise.
If you want me to believe that, you need to show me evidence.
‘Uneumerated rights’ doesn’t cut it.

MightyMandarin

SusieBlue wrote: »

Unenumerated rights does not equal constitutional protection for all unborn life before the 8th was put in place.
It was one judges assessment of it. So yeah, you’re wrong.

I’m saying before the 8th was voted in, the unborn had no specific right to life in our constitution. You are saying otherwise.
If you want me to believe that, you need to show me evidence.
‘Uneumerated rights’ doesn’t cut it.

Do you even know what an unenumerated right is? If the Supreme Court says it exists, it exists.

There are dozens of other rights enumerated by the Courts in Art.40.3.1. They're there. They exist. And until the 8th Amendment passed, they served the exact same purpose as Art.40.3.3. now does: they included the right to life for unborn human beings.

Clearly, you are out of your depth here. Your failure to grasp even the most basic concepts of constitutional law indicates to me you're not even worth debating.

Hotblack Desiato

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Do you even know what an unenumerated right is? If the Supreme Court says it exists, it exists.

They have JUST SAID it does not exist, that the only constitutional rights of the unborn are as set out in 40.3.3.

spacecoyote

To me, and my wife, who works in a primary school in an extremely low socio-economic area, one of the most frustrating things from pro-lifers is that, in reality, they're not really pro life. What they really are is pro birth.

Once a child is born they don't appear to give a crap about them.

Born into neglect
Born into addiction
Born into abuse

Who cares...as long as you were born!!!

The amount of resources that have been pumped into a campaign to remove an extremely personal & difficult choice from people could make a massive difference to a significantly larger portion of the population who are alive & need our help

Zubeneschamali

Pete29 wrote: »

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.

For an atheist, you have a great grasp of Catholic bolloxology theology.

And please note that this is specifically Catholic dogma, not just Christian. All the Christian churches in Ireland were against the 8th in 1983 except one. Guess which one.

Pete29

Pete29 wrote: »

So it's ok because you say so or because someone choose to say so? Not an argument. It is a living being in the first place. It will develop further when not killed on a whim.

No it won't develop further. It is incapable of independent survival without a host

Standman

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

For an atheist, you have a great grasp of Catholic bolloxology theology.

And please note that this is specifically Catholic dogma, not just Christian. All the Christian churches in Ireland were against the 8th in 1983 except one. Guess which one.

What's it got to do with religion?

robindch

Jordan Rapid Scrabble wrote: »

robindch wrote:

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.

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

Yes. I wrote two sentences - the first sentence says exactly what you've said here (thanks ) and that the OP has never posted in A+A (you missed that bit).

And the second sentence asks the OP to drop by and contribute to the ongoing thread on abortion as the OP is unique in claiming to be an atheist who is anti-abortion - a position which is, to the best of my recollection, completely unique and therefore interesting.

I hope this clarification clears things up for you!

Standman

robindch wrote: »

Yes. I wrote two sentences - the first sentence says exactly what you've said here (thanks ) and that the OP has never posted in A+A (you missed that bit).

And the second sentence asks the OP to drop by and contribute to the ongoing thread on abortion as the OP is unique in claiming to be an atheist who is anti-abortion - a position which is, to the best of my recollection, completely unique and therefore interesting.

I hope this clarification clears things up for you!

As an atheist myself, it has always irked me a bit that there seems to be a general assumption that if you are anti-abortion, you must be religious. It's a very complex issue, there will be all kinds of people on both sides of the fence.

Mrsmum

robindch wrote: »

Yes. I wrote two sentences - the first sentence says exactly what you've said here (thanks ) and that the OP has never posted in A+A (you missed that bit).

And the second sentence asks the OP to drop by and contribute to the ongoing thread on abortion as the OP is unique in claiming to be an atheist who is anti-abortion - a position which is, to the best of my recollection, completely unique and therefore interesting.

I hope this clarification clears things up for you!

I find it shocking that a mod on the A&A forum should have as a fundamental belief that all atheists are pro abortion to the point that you think an anti abortion atheist is unique ! That notion is beyond narrowminded.

Sofiztikated

Mrsmum wrote: »

I find it shocking that a mod on the A&A forum should have as a fundamental belief that all atheists are pro abortion to the point that you think an anti abortion atheist is unique ! That notion is beyond narrowminded.

Based on that thread, a pro birth atheist is unique.

Mrsmum

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Based on that thread, a pro birth atheist is unique.

Well if that is so, it completely discredits that thread as realistic of viewpoints of atheists in general. Same as there is Catholics and every other Church on both sides, the same is true for atheists.

blanch152

MightyMandarin wrote: »

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.

You clearly misunderstand the nature of the 8th Amendment - and I am not surprised given the clear mistaken propaganda of the NO campaign.

It is not about giving the unborn the right to life like every other human being. The issue is about the equality of that right to life with the right to life of the mother and the conflict with other rights that women have such as the right to bodily integrity and the right to choose and the appropriate balance between all of those rights.

Taking it out of Ireland, to a Canadian context, here is an interesting article on how different rights "compete" or conflict:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-competing-human-rights/4-what-are-competing-rights

In essence, by fixing the balance in a particular and unchanging way in the Constitution, the 8th Amendment results in unintended consequences and very harsh results for individual women. It has already had to be amended to allow for the right to travel and the right to information which conflicted with it already. The dangers of further amendments to allow for the right to bodily integrity or the right to choose, is that they could really allow for unrestricted abortion.

The only legally safe way to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the rights reflecting the views of society at any one point in time is to remove the 8th from the Constitution and for the Dail to legislate in respect of the issue.

blanch152

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.

The 8th Amendment was brought in to recognise the equal right to life of the unborn, not to introduce a right to life that wasn't already there.

In the same way there is no particular clause in the Constitution that says a man, a child, a blind person, someone who wears brown shoes, or a person aged over 90 have a right to life other than the general right to life, the question remains as to why the unborn require special protection that other forms of life do not? The only answer is that a male-dominated society doesn't want to trust women who carry babies in their womb.

blanch152

Standman wrote: »

As an atheist myself, it has always irked me a bit that there seems to be a general assumption that if you are anti-abortion, you must be religious. It's a very complex issue, there will be all kinds of people on both sides of the fence.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I find it shocking that a mod on the A&A forum should have as a fundamental belief that all atheists are pro abortion to the point that you think an anti abortion atheist is unique ! That notion is beyond narrowminded.

I think what he is saying (and I agree with him) that an atheist who is pro-life is in a very small minority and unique to these boards in that he hasn't experienced one on here before. He was then extending an invitation to the pro-life atheist to contribute to a thread in the A&A forum so that he could enlighten other atheists with his views.

That invitation shows the opposite of narrowmindedness. It will be interesting to see if the OP actually displays the broadminded ability to contribute there.

oscarBravo

MightyMandarin wrote: »

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.

Why would ethical and moral issues be at the forefront of a constitutional debate? Surely legal issues should be foremost? Such as, should we attempt to shoehorn complex ethical and moral issues into a couple of short paragraphs of constitutional law? Is it appropriate for an electorate to deny future governments, representative of the views of future electorates, the right to enact legislation to meet the requirements of the electorate of the day?

Standman wrote: »

As an atheist myself, it has always irked me a bit that there seems to be a general assumption that if you are anti-abortion, you must be religious. It's a very complex issue, there will be all kinds of people on both sides of the fence.

There may well be, but I'm leaning heavily to the view that the OP is being disingenuous in claiming to be an atheist. I think it's a dishonest attempt to portray what is self-evidently a religiously-informed view on reproductive rights as one arrived at independently.

It's already been pointed out that some of the OP's views are perfectly aligned with Catholic dogma on the topic. Beyond that, there's the whole "you chose to have sex, so deal with the consequences" attitude that none too subtly implies punishment for sin.

I'm OK with someone being anti-choice for religious reasons. I disagree with it, but as far as it goes it's a relatively valid reason. I'm not OK with them being dishonest about it.

Mrsmum

blanch152 wrote: »

I think what he is saying (and I agree with him) that an atheist who is pro-life is in a very small minority and unique to these boards in that he hasn't experienced one on here before. He was then extending an invitation to the pro-life atheist to contribute to a thread in the A&A forum so that he could enlighten other atheists with his views.

That invitation shows the opposite of narrowmindedness. It will be interesting to see if the OP actually displays the broadminded ability to contribute there.

The invitation isn't narrowminded, I agree. The notion that all atheists think as one is.

blanch152

Mrsmum wrote: »

The invitation isn't narrowminded, I agree. The notion that all atheists think as one is.

The notion that all atheists think as one on the issue was clearly based on his experience in the A&A forum where a large number of them gather. The invitation clearly displays an openmindedness to consider the alternative point of view. A very healthy position to adopt.

It is akin to a local bishop inviting pro-choice Catholics to set out their views and their reasons for their views in a letter to be read out at all Masses. I am not holding my breath for that kind of openness from our Catholic brethern.

KyussB

The actual complexities of the entire abortion argument - which are genuinely morally/ethically ambiguous, to a huge extent - by necessity get distilled down to just a few edge cases, where practicality demands relatively unrestricted abortion, as there is simply no workable way to legislate in any different manner, without causing great harm to individual people.

Doesn't matter what your religious or non-religious views are, or even your views regarding womens rights - these practicalities and edge cases, are what it comes down to - and they can't be dismissed due to being a minority, these are the edge cases that decide the whole matter.

It is cases such as pregnancy through rape, severe issues that guarantee a debilitating or short life for the child, and threat to the mothers life or health, which - combined - leave no practical way of avoiding relatively unrestricted abortion laws.

It's all rather simple. It doesn't take much thought to see that these are the most solid arguments, and easiest to grasp. You don't have to delve into any morally ambiguous territory, to see that a Yes vote here, is the right vote - no matter your other views or values.

blanch152

KyussB wrote: »

The actual complexities of the entire abortion argument - which are genuinely morally/ethically ambiguous, to a huge extent - by necessity get distilled down to just a few edge cases, where practicality demands relatively unrestricted abortion, as there is simply no workable way to legislate in any different manner, without causing great harm to individual people.

Doesn't matter what your religious or non-religious views are, or even your views regarding womens rights - these practicalities and edge cases, are what it comes down to - and they can't be dismissed due to being a minority, these are the edge cases that decide the whole matter.

It is cases such as pregnancy through rape, severe issues that guarantee a debilitating or short life for the child, and threat to the mothers life or health, which - combined - leave no practical way of avoiding relatively unrestricted abortion laws.

It's all rather simple. It doesn't take much thought to see that these are the most solid arguments, and easiest to grasp. You don't have to delve into any morally ambiguous territory, to see that a Yes vote here, is the right vote - no matter your other views or values.

The only people who should vote NO are those who believe in a Catholic state for Catholic people and those who believe in the oppression of women.

Anyone who supports any form of restricted abortion should vote YES and hope that the legislators can tightly define a form of restricted abortion in lengthy legislation that isn't unwieldy in practice.

Anyone who supports the right to choose or the right to bodily integrity should obviously vote YES.

upandcumming

blanch152 wrote: »

The only people who should vote NO are those who believe in a Catholic state for Catholic people and those who believe in the oppression of women.

Nonsense.

blanch152

upandcumming wrote: »

Nonsense.

There are no other credible reasons for voting NO.

robindch

Standman wrote: »

As an atheist myself, it has always irked me a bit that there seems to be a general assumption that if you are anti-abortion, you must be religious. It's a very complex issue, there will be all kinds of people on both sides of the fence.

Yes, it's a complex issue and that's why I've asked the OP to drop by A+A as his/her position is either common (but not seen in A+A) or uncommon (explaining why it's not seen in A+A).

Mrsmum wrote: »

I find it shocking that a mod on the A&A forum should have as a fundamental belief that all atheists are pro abortion to the point that you think an anti abortion atheist is unique ! That notion is beyond narrowminded.

What's narrow-minded - or quite silly, depending upon one's taste - is your assumption that I've made such an idiotic claim. Please read it again.

I've pointed out that OP hasn't posted in A+A and that the OP's position is, in my experience of atheists, unique. This does not imply that I believe that "all atheists are pro abortion" or that "an anti abortion atheist is unique", since I have not asked all atheists to confirm their beliefs, nor have all atheists posted in A+A, nor can I confirm that the atheists who have posted in A+A, or who have told me their beliefs, are accurately representing their actual beliefs. Nor am I entirely sure that the OP is accurately representing their views about atheism as they seem, at best, ill-thought out.

I hope this deshocks your shock!

MayoAreMagic

blanch152 wrote: »

There are no other credible reasons for voting NO.

Well to my mind the crux of a lot of the disagreement on the topic seems to centre of whether a <12 week unborn foetus is equivalent to a person or not. I have to say, I'm finding that question hard to answer definitively.
However, how far do you take that? For example, is wearing a condom, technically, all that different? Like what is the difference between removing a fertilized egg, and deliberately preventing an egg from being fertilized (where ultimately, both expire in a similar fashion). A lot of the No campaign logic, can be applied to that scenario also, so it isn't really consistant.

However, I believe an all important point that is lost on the argument of the No campaign, is that anyone who wants to have an abortion is already doing so and will continue to do so regardless of the result. For that reason, I don't see where a lot of the stuff they are saying in the campaign, is coming from.

I do find some of their propaganda a bit hard to swallow though. For example, this undertone of 'look at those auld brits over there with their lack of morals (insert dodgey looking statistic to suggest this point), we will end up like them if we aren't careful'. It is a deliberate attempt to play on old biases that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. To my mind that is poor form.
Similarly, the one where they say 'well you cant let the politicians decide the legislation' as if our politicians are these baby seal-clubbing extremists who are secretly hell-bent on bringing in abortions at every possible juncture once given control. Like politicians have daughters, sisters, mother and/or are women themselves too.
I don't think it is doing them any favours either - there is a bit of desperation about that stuff.

How ever this vote goes, the next vote I would like to see is on putting an end to campaigns. They are unhelpful and as far as I can see, only attempt to muddy the waters to suit themselves. We would be far better served with a government led delivery of honest information for both sides of the argument.

Zubeneschamali

Standman wrote: »

What's it got to do with religion?

That quote from the OP (the atheist in the title) is the Catholic double effect dogma. It is odd to see a professed atheist parroting dogma which is rejected by every Protestant ethos hospital, never mind the various non-Christian faiths before you get anywhere near the humanists and atheists.

An ex-Catholic atheist like myself may know this, but not even an ex-Catholic atheist would pretend this dogma is in any way sensible.

So, is the OP actually a Catholic, an atheist so steeped in Catholic upbringing that they don't see it, or an atheist pretending to believe this for some obvious reason?

Wrongway1985

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, is the OP actually a Catholic, an atheist so steeped in Catholic upbringing that they don't see it, or an atheist pretending to believe this for some obvious reason?

Mentioned a view posts back one of OPs first posts on boards is regarding to Relgion subject for leaving cert. Now of course nothing suggest he didn't change views in the resulting years but it does strike suspect that maybe the notion of claiming to be atheist embedded in the thread title would gain more traction when he's anything but?

ironingbored

Jordan Rapid Scrabble wrote: »

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

Then why on earth is gestation not 12 weeks?!

SuperRabbit

Yes there are anti-choice atheists. I've been an atheist since I was 14 but I've only been pro-choice since I was 18. First I was convinced of the fact that with all the awful and unspeakable suffering in the world, we should prioritise taking care of the people who are already here rather than worrying about a 12 week old fetus, 2 inches in length. I felt that first we would make the world safe for everyone, get food and water and education and health for everyone, and THEN start worrying about abortion.

So it started with logic, but then as I grew older I got more and more empathetic and this got reinforced, you just can't have empathy and vote no. The 8th denies absolutely everyone, regardless of circumstances, a choice about their lives and their health. Voting no means no exceptions, you just can't have empathy and do that. Why do people think the women in their lives would have an abortion that wasn't absolutely necessary? Nobody wants to have an abortion. Right now people are being forced to risk their health by doing it at home in their own bathroom, or going to England. This is just punishing people needlessly.

Zubeneschamali

ironingbored wrote: »

Then why on earth is gestation not 12 weeks?!

And Lo, the fetus gestated from week 1 to week 12, and on the 13th week he rested.

Also weeks 14-40, resting there too.