Keep abortion out of Ireland

JimiTime · 28-02-2012 2:25pm

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Fair enough, that was my mistake.

Some people would call it a new life, others would call it a ball of cells - perspective is everything and not everyone shares yours. I'm not going to get into an argument about foetal development, timescales etc..... But I stick to my earlier point - plenty of people want the option, and legally they should have it. If it's not your body, then it's not your moral dilemma - by all means you're entitled to disagree with it but you don't have the right to hinder someone elses choice based on your religion.

1) I don't hinder someones choice based on religion. Are you saying to give the unborn value is only a religious concept?

2) As for hindering someones choice, that is just spin. Is having a law against stealing spun as hindering someones choice to not pay for things that are not theirs? No. Similarly, it is not a hindering of choice to object to people being able to kill their unborn.

Again, we must empathise and support would be mothers, and not look to judge them etc. However, we should not support a system that counts killing the unborn as a choice. We should encourage a system that asks why women want to have such procedures, and look to correct it. We should also look at what support women have etc in these circumstances. We don't want to vilify women, and I'm not a fan of shouting murder etc. We need to be as compassionate and passionate about how we support distressed women, as we are about defending the lives of the unborn.

mdebets · 28-02-2012 3:24pm

Festus wrote: »

Bar self defense and just war I do not agree with anything that leads to the death of another human being, much less a child.

Could you please clarify this sentence, by answering the following questions.

You have person A who will die until he gets a kidney transplant. Person B is the only person available to give a kidney to person A and has 2 healthy kidneys. Person B refuses (for whatever reason) to give one of his kidneys to A.
1) Should person B be forced, to give a kidney to person A?
2) Do you see person B as a murderer (of person A), if he doesn't give his kidney to person A and person A dies??

marienbad · 28-02-2012 3:43pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Has value rather than sacred.

Thats not in question. A new life begins at conception, that is not in doubt. The question that pro abortion people raise, is at what point does that life have value.

Have you seriously raised the fact that babies die in war, famine etc, that this somehow makes abortion ok?

So what IS the issue?

Its not 'exporting a problem', when the nation has a justice policy like this. It means the nation is choosing not to be complicit in what it deems to be an unjust act. There are places in the world where you can legally take drugs, get prostitutes etc. Just because other nations have different laws, does not mean we do the same.

Trying to protect the unborn has little to do with gender.
Support for women who have an unwanted pregnancy may well be better served by women though.

You are missing my point - to contend that human life is sacred or has value at any time in the history of this world is obviously wrong. Survival for the most part depends on pure chance.

So why focus on the unborn ? why not look after the babies we do have instead of the babies we might have ? Why leave them in crime ridden slum estates without education without hope . Or as was our wont stick them in the most appaling industrial schools and laundries and treat them like slave lavour. Or make adoption virtually inpossible unless you passed the religious test

As for exporting the problem - if you could would you prevent those women from travelling then ? form receiving information ? At least it would be less hypocritical.

But no, the powers that be let them go and let others solve our problems as to not do so would inevitably raise over time a wave of resentment and bring the whole edifice toppling down .

charlietheminxx · 28-02-2012 3:48pm

PDN wrote: »

Some people would call you a life, others would call you a ball of cells. If I choose to kill you then perspective is everything. But that would be my moral dilemma, not yours. Do others have the right to hinder my choice if I want to kill you?

I am a viable human being independent of anyone else. I don't have to be attached to someone else in order to survive. You would be killing a person who has a life, not something which merely has the potential to be that.

Don't get me wrong, I do think the regulations they have on (for example) the UK abortion system is flawed, and late stage abortions should be banned. Anything which is capable of feeling pain or which is at an almost viable stage, should be protected. At THAT stage it is life....

I just don't think it's as black and white as you're making it out to be. There are plenty of situations into which a child would be better off not being born, for their sake and the mothers.

PDN · 28-02-2012 3:49pm

marienbad wrote: »

You are missing my point - to contend that human life is sacred or has value at any time in the history of this world is obviously wrong.

Not obvious at all.

So why focus on the unborn ? why not look after the babies we do have instead of the babies we might have ? Why leave them in crime ridden slum estates without education without hope .

Why present this as a false dichotomy? Who here is arguing that children should be left in crime ridden slum estates without education or hope?

Or as was our wont stick them in the most appaling industrial schools and laundries and treat them like slave lavour. Or make adoption virtually inpossible unless you passed the religious test

Why are you adressing this to Jimi. When did he stick anyone in a laundry or an industrial school?

Marien, you're really going to have to come up with a better argument than "Bad things have happened to kids, so that makes it OK to kill them while they're still in the womb."

Benny_Cake · 28-02-2012 3:50pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats not in question. A new life begins at conception, that is not in doubt. The question that pro abortion people raise, is at what point does that life have value.

Small point of order, but I believe that a majority of experts would consider the moment of implantation, rather than the moment of conception to be the moment in which pregnancy begins. It is quite common for the fertilised egg not to implant in the womb, for a variety of reasons. I'd broadly agree with the rest of your post.

JimiTime · 28-02-2012 4:27pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Small point of order, but I believe that a majority of experts would consider the moment of implantation, rather than the moment of conception to be the moment in which pregnancy begins. It is quite common for the fertilised egg not to implant in the womb, for a variety of reasons. I'd broadly agree with the rest of your post.

That may be considered the beginning of pregnancy by some (I'm just taking your word that this is the consensus). However, once that sperm hits the egg, its BOOM. The beginning. Gender, eye colour etc. A unique being has just come into existence. Like a computer that has just had a programmer execute code on it. Except this programme takes 9 months to load

Benny_Cake · 28-02-2012 4:36pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Small point of order, but I believe that a majority of experts would consider the moment of implantation, rather than the moment of conception to be the moment in which pregnancy begins. It is quite common for the fertilised egg not to implant in the womb, for a variety of reasons. I'd broadly agree with the rest of your post.

That may be considered the beginning of pregnancy by some (I'm just taking your word that this is the consensus). However, once that sperm hits the egg, its BOOM. The beginning. Gender, eye colour etc. A unique being has just come into existence. Like a computer that has just had a programmer execute code on it. Except this programme takes 9 months to load

I'll see if I can find the article I read that in - clearly one could make the argument that life / pregnancy begins at conception, some scientists undoubtedly hold that view, but not the majority. Taking your analogy further, before implantation the fertilised egg is like a computer program on a disk which hasn't a computer to run on yet! I'm really showing my age with that one! Either way, this has no real bearing on the abortion debate as I don't think it would be possible for a woman to even know she was pregnant prior to implantation?

marienbad · 28-02-2012 8:43pm

PDN wrote: »

Not obvious at all.

Why present this as a false dichotomy? Who here is arguing that children should be left in crime ridden slum estates without education or hope?

Why are you adressing this to Jimi. When did he stick anyone in a laundry or an industrial school?

Marien, you're really going to have to come up with a better argument than "Bad things have happened to kids, so that makes it OK to kill them while they're still in the womb."

No I don't have to come up with a better argument PDN - those that see it don't need a argument, and those that don't will never be convinced anyway.

I am curious as to why the ''unborn'' garner such support but the snotty ruffians with the skanger mothers little older that kids themselves don't.

The emotive language '' killing in the womb'' means nothing to those on the other side PDN and just makes any discussion pointless.

And this is coming from someone who has huge reservations about abortion but not the certainty to insist on my way or god's way or the popes way- but most definitely not the pregnant mother's way .

La Petite Fleur · 28-02-2012 9:32pm

marienbad wrote: »

I am curious as to why the ''unborn'' garner such support but the snotty ruffians with the skanger mothers little older that kids themselves don't.

? For what reason exactly do you think children living disadvantaged areas should be killed off ? ?

And this is coming from someone who has huge reservations about abortion but not the certainty to insist on my way or god's way or the popes way- but most definitely not the pregnant mother's way .

Why on earth should an Atheist not be not be anti abortion in any circumstances if they so wish ? Quite a few I know are, they are also anti death penalty. I also know people who identify themselves as Christians, who are pro abortion in certain circumstances, and pro death penalty.
Trying to Pigeonhole pro/anti abortion people into theist Vs atheist camps is a complete nonsense.
Please don't tell me you are one of those bigoted loons that believes just because some Christians you don't like are anti abortion, you must be automatically pro abortion ? Abortion is not an Atheist Vs Theist debate.

gimmebroadband · 28-02-2012 9:35pm

Once abortion get's it foot in the door, eventually it will be expolited!

Following image is a case in point -I didn't want to put it directly into topic for those who don't want to see!

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/babyfj.jpg/

Sonics2k · 28-02-2012 10:28pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Once abortion get's it foot in the door, eventually it will be expolited!

Following image is a case in point -I didn't want to put it directly into topic for those who don't want to see!

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/babyfj.jpg/

Wait, you think this doesn't happen already?

Maybe if early term abortion had been available to that woman, that child would never have been born, or felt anything like air or existence.

Or do you think it's preferable that a woman is forced to have a child she does not want?

PDN · 28-02-2012 10:50pm

marienbad wrote: »

No I don't have to come up with a better argument PDN - those that see it don't need a argument, and those that don't will never be convinced anyway.

.

Just proclaiming your view, without being expected to present any rationale for it, is known as 'soapboxing'.

I am curious as to why the ''unborn'' garner such support but the snotty ruffians with the skanger mothers little older that kids themselves don't.

If people were killing them, then they certainly would. In fact, I would highly recommend that you acquaint yourself with the excellent work done by Christian groups who help the gangs of streetkids in parts of Latin America and Africa who are hunted down and killed by pro-government deathsquads.

The emotive language '' killing in the womb'' means nothing to those on the other side PDN and just makes any discussion pointless.

Killing people should stir our emotions. The moment we are able to view it dispassionately then we have lost an essential part of our humanity.

Totalitarian regimes that want to promote genocide or torture know that the first step they must do is to dehumanise the victims. Therefore they call them 'cockroaches', 'Jewish pigs', 'vermin' or 'a bunch of cells'. They avoid terms like 'kill', preferring to talk about 'cleansing', 'eradicating' or 'terminating' - even a 'Final Solution'.

_LilyRose_ · 28-02-2012 11:11pm

PDN wrote: »

Totalitarian regimes that want to promote genocide or torture know that the first step they must do is to dehumanise the victims. Therefore they call them 'cockroaches', 'Jewish pigs', 'vermin' or 'a bunch of cells'. They avoid terms like 'kill', preferring to talk about 'cleansing', 'eradicating' or 'terminating' - even a 'Final Solution'.

I don't think comparing abortion to genocide is fair.

PDN · 28-02-2012 11:43pm

_LilyRose_ wrote: »

I don't think comparing abortion to genocide is fair.

It's as well nobody did so then.

marienbad · 28-02-2012 11:54pm

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

? For what reason exactly do you think children living disadvantaged areas should be killed off ? ?

Why on earth should an Atheist not be not be anti abortion in any circumstances if they so wish ? Quite a few I know are, they are also anti death penalty. I also know people who identify themselves as Christians, who are pro abortion in certain circumstances, and pro death penalty.
Trying to Pigeonhole pro/anti abortion people into theist Vs atheist camps is a complete nonsense.
Please don't tell me you are one of those bigoted loons that believes just because some Christians you don't like are anti abortion, you must be automatically pro abortion ? Abortion is not an Atheist Vs Theist debate.

Talk about misreading a post !! and you accuse me of pidgeonholing ?

marienbad · 29-02-2012 12:10am

PDN wrote: »

Just proclaiming your view, without being expected to present any rationale for it, is known as 'soapboxing'.

If people were killing them, then they certainly would. In fact, I would highly recommend that you acquaint yourself with the excellent work done by Christian groups who help the gangs of streetkids in parts of Latin America and Africa who are hunted down and killed by pro-government deathsquads.

Killing people should stir our emotions. The moment we are able to view it dispassionately then we have lost an essential part of our humanity.

Totalitarian regimes that want to promote genocide or torture know that the first step they must do is to dehumanise the victims. Therefore they call them 'cockroaches', 'Jewish pigs', 'vermin' or 'a bunch of cells'. They avoid terms like 'kill', preferring to talk about 'cleansing', 'eradicating' or 'terminating' - even a 'Final Solution'.

It is you that is soapboxing as you go on about the christian groups ( I am well aware of them and the good work they do) and ignore the point I am making about the chronic neglect that afflicts the poorer sections in our society. All those snotty nosed kids I referred to. What is the life expectancy of those kids in the estates of Limerick riddled with drugs and crime and abandoned by the state. Or those disease ridden areas of Africa. It seems once the kid is born it is a question of yuck here you go miss manage as best you can and I am off to save the next baby.

As you say killing people should stir emotions- but there is a genuine philosophical/scientific/medical/ethical difference as to what constitutes a person - you and others have reached your position influenced by your religious perspective. And good luck to you - others disagree- but you want to make your view the law of the land not just for you and yours but for everybody. That is the issue.

At least the catholics are consistent being opposed to contraception/morning after/abortion/IVF - what is your position on those issues ?

PDN · 29-02-2012 12:22am

marienbad wrote: »

It is you that is soapboxing as you go on about the christian groups ( I am well aware of them and the good work they do) and ignore the point I am making about the chronic neglect that afflicts the poorer sections in our society. All those snotty nosed kids I referred to. What is the life expectancy of those kids in the estates of Limerick riddled with drugs and crime and abandoned by the state. Or those disease ridden areas of Africa. It seems once the kid is born it is a question of yuck here you go miss manage as best you can and I am off to save the next baby.

You really are doing your best to avoid discussing the issue, aren't you? You bang on about Christians not addressing kids who are in poverty, yet if we mention the work Christians are doing then you accuse us of soapboxing?

Let's get one thing clear. The issue of whether abortion is right or wrong will remain the same, irrespective of whether the baby concerned comes from a middle class suburb or a crime ridden estate.

As you say killing people should stir emotions- but there is a genuine philosophical/scientific/medical/ethical difference as to what constitutes a person - you and others have reached your position influenced by your religious perspective

That is untrue. I was opposed to killing unborn babies when I was an atheist.

And good luck to you - others disagree- but you want to make your view the law of the land not just for you and yours but for everybody. That is the issue.

Yes, and I also want my views on childhood prostitution, slavery and murder to be reflected in the law of the land. It's called 'holding a political opinion'. If you object to people holding and expressing political opinions then maybe you shouldn't discuss political issues?

At least the catholics are consistent being opposed to contraception/morning after/abortion/IVF - what is your position on those issues ?

I actually think that is irrelevant, likely to derail the thread, and I really don't intend to facilitate you in picking a fight.

philologos · 29-02-2012 12:24am

marienbad: There are Christians in Dublin reaching out to the very people you describe. Drug addicts, people from broken homes, people who have been abused, teenagers who fall pregnant and so on. Dublin Christian Mission for example are a real witness to Jesus Christ in Dublin, living as He commanded them to. Our gospel is one of mercy, not of condemnation.

marienbad · 29-02-2012 12:40am

PDN wrote: »

You really are doing your best to avoid discussing the issue, aren't you? You bang on about Christians not addressing kids who are in poverty, yet if we mention the work Christians are doing then you accuse us of soapboxing?

Let's get one thing clear. The issue of whether abortion is right or wrong will remain the same, irrespective of whether the baby concerned comes from a middle class suburb or a crime ridden estate.

That is untrue. I was opposed to killing unborn babies when I was an atheist.

Yes, and I also want my views on childhood prostitution, slavery and murder to be reflected in the law of the land. It's called 'holding a political opinion'. If you object to people holding and expressing political opinions then maybe you shouldn't discuss political issues?

I actually think that is irrelevant, likely to derail the thread, and I really don't intend to facilitate you in picking a fight.

Look PDN , it is impossible to have a discussion with you , you just misread the intention behind every post and just go looking for a fight. You bring up soapboxing and then object when I do !

This should never be a political opinion. Those issues of child prostition etc are not applicable as there is complete concensus on them.

On this issue you want your definition of ''life'' informed as it is by your religious views and against a vast body of opinion enshrined into law.

I would have thought that winning that scientific argument should be the battleground- as you win that then everything follows .

How can the issue of contraception/morning after/abortion IVF be irrelevant ? In convenient maybe - irrelevant surely not. It is all about when life begins is it not ?

marienbad · 29-02-2012 12:49am

philologos wrote: »

marienbad: There are Christians in Dublin reaching out to the very people you describe. Drug addicts, people from broken homes, people who have been abused, teenagers who fall pregnant and so on. Dublin Christian Mission for example are a real witness to Jesus Christ in Dublin, living as He commanded them to. Our gospel is one of mercy, not of condemnation.

Well aware of that philologos, and to be this is where the real battle should be fought . There is a Drug Rehab Centre in Dublin that I have a little contact with , they can handle about 40 people and have a pool of potential patients numbering in their thousands and growing . It is a hopeless situation. And that seems to be the sum total of our answer to drugs.

Solve these problems and you would go a long way to solving the demand for abortion.

PDN · 29-02-2012 1:02am

marienbad wrote: »

Look PDN , it is impossible to have a discussion with you , you just misread the intention behind every post and just go looking for a fight. You bring up soapboxing and then object when I do !

Marien, soapboxing is when you announce your view without advancing any argument for it. Tonight, in two separate threads, you have basically said, "I don't have to advance an argument, anyone can see my view is right."

I, on the other hand, was directly addressing your false argument that those who are against abortion don't care about impoverished kids. So, instead of acknowledging that Christians do indeed work with impoverished kids and that your point was therefore invalid, you inaccurately accuse me of soapboxing.

This should never be a political opinion. Those issues of child prostition etc are not applicable as there is complete concensus on them.

So it's OK to have a political opinion where everyone else agrees with you, but not on any issue where there is anything other than a total consensus. Are you sure that you really want to advance that as an argument?

On this issue you want your definition of ''life'' informed as it is by your religious views and against a vast body of opinion enshrined into law.

The first time you made this false assumption about me, it could be ascribed to ignorance. But I've just told you that I felt the same way about abortion when I was an atheist. So why do you then proceed to say something about me which is untrue?

How can the issue of contraception/morning after/abortion IVF be irrelevant ? In convenient maybe - irrelevant surely not. It is all about when life begins is it not ?

It's irrelevant when we're discussing abortion. I've been dragged down too many rabbit trails by atheists who weren't doing very well at presenting coherent arguments on the issue at hand.

Start a thread on contraception and I'll gladly share my opinions.

eamo12 · 29-02-2012 1:10am

Liamario wrote: »

I'm neither for, nor against abortion, but this "message" is pushing me towards pro choice.

Can I suggest you read about former director of Planned Parenthood Abby Johnson testimony where she witnessed an unborn child fighting for its life during an abortion procedure.

marienbad · 29-02-2012 1:22am

PDN wrote: »

Marien, soapboxing is when you announce your view without advancing any argument for it. Tonight, in two separate threads, you have basically said, "I don't have to advance an argument, anyone can see my view is right."

I, on the other hand, was directly addressing your false argument that those who are against abortion don't care about impoverished kids. So, instead of acknowledging that Christians do indeed work with impoverished kids and that your point was therefore invalid, you inaccurately accuse me of soapboxing.

So it's OK to have a political opinion where everyone else agrees with you, but not on any issue where there is anything other than a total consensus. Are you sure that you really want to advance that as an argument?

The first time you made this false assumption about me, it could be ascribed to ignorance. But I've just told you that I felt the same way about abortion when I was an atheist. So why do you then proceed to say something about me which is untrue?

It's irrelevant when we're discussing abortion. I've been dragged down too many rabbit trails by atheists who weren't doing very well at presenting coherent arguments on the issue at hand.

Start a thread on contraception and I'll gladly share my opinions.

Ok then PDN lets put it this way- when i say you from now on I mean ''one'' or ''those that support the ban on abortion'' and not you.

So to rephrase - most people in this country that oppose abortion do so informed by their religious beliefs.

Their definition of ''life'' is also informed by those convictions and contrary to a vast body of scientific opinion.

They wish to have that religiously informed view enshrined into law.

That being the case it is perfectly valid to ask their views on contraception/morning after/IVF. After all it is not so long ago that contraception was illegal and some/many already believe the morning after pill is abortion and the Pope has just re-affirmed the opposition to IVF.

You may not think they are related but most people do.

Festus · 29-02-2012 2:04am

mdebets wrote: »

Could you please clarify this sentence, by answering the following questions.

You have person A who will die until he gets a kidney transplant. Person B is the only person available to give a kidney to person A and has 2 healthy kidneys. Person B refuses (for whatever reason) to give one of his kidneys to A.
1) Should person B be forced, to give a kidney to person A?
2) Do you see person B as a murderer (of person A), if he doesn't give his kidney to person A and person A dies??

a)What does any of that have to do with self defense or just war?

b) perhaps you are alluding to John 15:13?

Without knowing your answer to b) then 1) and 2) I cannot answer adequately.

That said there is much merit to John 15:13 and it's relevance to this debate.

However I do not know if you really understand the true meaning of John 15:13.

The last thing I need to do now is try to explain John 15:13 to you before going on to explain how that is relevant to this discussion.

c) you have referenced two people who are not pregnant. How is this relevant to this debate?

So, why not make this both interesting and relevant?

You have person A who is pregnant and who will die until she gets a kidney transplant. Person B is the only person available to give a kidney to person A and has 2 healthy kidneys. Person B refuses (for whatever reason) to give one of his kidneys to A.
1) Should person B be forced, to give a kidney to person A?
2) Do you see person B as a murderer (of person A), if he doesn't give his kidney to person A and person A dies??

And for a bit of salt lets place this at a time when dialysis is illegal.

And for a bit of pepper lets say c-sections are also illegal.

Feel free to answer in your own time.

Festus · 29-02-2012 2:17am

Cool Mo D wrote: »

No it isn't. Sperm is alive. Eggs are alive. When they combine, the combination is alive, but it is not a new life.

So, what is it, if not a new life?

Depending on what you come up with there could be a Ph.D in it for you.

La Petite Fleur · 29-02-2012 2:28am

marienbad wrote: »

So to rephrase - most people in this country that oppose abortion do so informed by their religious beliefs.

This seems to be your real problem with anyone expressing an anti-abortion opinion, along with continually wishing to ignore the fact that many atheists are anti abortion, and I and many other theists would still remain anti abortion even if we became atheists.

So rather than the strawman tangent, how about trying to present to us even just one credible argument that justifies the killing of children while still in the womb ?

PDN · 29-02-2012 8:37am

marienbad wrote: »

Ok then PDN lets put it this way- when i say you from now on I mean ''one'' or ''those that support the ban on abortion'' and not you.

In that case I'll stop entering into any lengthy discussions with you. It's going to get very confusing if you keep on addressing posts at me, but while so doing using the word 'you' to refer to other people.

Peregrinus · 29-02-2012 9:02am

marienbad wrote: »

On this issue you want your definition of ''life'' informed as it is by your religious views and against a vast body of opinion enshrined into law.

There’s a “vast body of opinion” that the human embryo is not alive?

marienbad wrote: »

I would have thought that winning that scientific argument should be the battleground- as you win that then everything follows.

Well, I don’t think scientists are in any doubt that the human embryo is alive. Does that conclude the debate, then?

JimiTime · 29-02-2012 11:23am

There seems to be confusion with some of the pro-abortion proponents with regards to life. There is no scientific statement that says a fertilised egg is not a new life. All that there is, is a philosophical question raised in relation to when that new life has value. For Example, some take the stand that before the human embryo has cognitive function, it is not a 'Person' yet. By introducing personhood, it brings the debate into the philosophical realm. That is not scientific, its philosophical. Science comes into it only in informing that person as to at what point the human embryo develops this cognitive function. It still does not proclaim that it is not a human life, it just says that human life has no value until it is a 'person', which the proponent will define in certain terms. It still doesn't reject the notion that a fertilised egg is a new human life.

Keep abortion out of Ireland

Comments