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]

2456724

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 22,198 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Pete29 wrote: »

    Question for you: If you were alone on a space ship with a friend, that last humans in existence containing a million frozen embryos that were going to populate a new planet and give rise to a new generation of humans, knowing that delivering them to the planet would end up killing your friend due to a lack of resources on the ship, Which would you choose?

    I’d choose to save my friend. It’d be years before those embryos were any craic at all.


  • Posts: 0 Selene Lemon Dean


    Pete29 wrote: »
    No, because cheek cells when left to their natural processes do not become human infants. An implanted human embryo, when not killed, will develop into a human infant very quickly and has the right to do so in the vast majority of cases.

    You're 5 year old vs a million embryos depends on the situation define within the boundaries of the metaphor. If it's simply one dies or the other. I would choose the 5 year old.

    Question for you: If you were alone on a space ship with a friend, that last humans in existence containing a million frozen embryos that were going to populate a new planet and give rise to a new generation of humans, knowing that delivering them to the planet would end up killing your friend due to a lack of resources on the ship, Which would you choose?

    You can devise these situational ethic thought experiments to high light different values in different situations, but they don't usually apply to the most common situations, because they're both outlandish and unrealistic. Neither my metaphor or yours applies to the vast majority of pregnancies in Ireland.

    I would ask my friend what they CHOOSE.

    Human embryo can only become a living person in the presence of an accepting body. The woman chooses to not be that body.


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


    Pete29 wrote: »
    No, because cheek cells when left to their natural processes do not become human infants. An implanted human embryo, when not killed, will develop into a human infant very quickly and has the right to do so in the vast majority of cases.

    1 in 3 pregnancies naturally miscarry before week 12.
    That's why most people don't announce they are expecting - too much chance something could go wrong. There is also the risk of stillbirth and FFA, so its not just a case of it being a certainty that each pregnancy will be successful and result in a healthy baby.

    And as for the bolded, I wouldn't call 9 months a "quick" process. Ask any pregnant woman and she'll tell you. Its a big burden and responsibility and is by no means a walk in the park.
    The baby hardly hangs around the womb for 40 weeks for the laugh - they do so because until week 23 they aren't viable. Up until week 32/34, the lungs are usually too immature to breath unaided when born.
    Pregnancy is 40 weeks long for a reason.


  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Sin City wrote: »
    Im on the fence too , but leaning towards yes

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

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

    I can only think logically and philiosphically

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

    So im probably going to vote Yes

    Do you believe you have the right to your life? If so, when did that right begin?


  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    1 in 3 pregnancies naturally miscarry before week 12.
    That's why most people don't announce they are expecting - too much chance something could go wrong. There is also the risk of stillbirth and FFA, so its not just a case of it being a certainty that each pregnancy will be successful and result in a healthy baby.

    And as for the bolded, I wouldn't call 9 months a "quick" process. Ask any pregnant woman and she'll tell you. Its a big burden and responsibility and is by no means a walk in the park.
    The baby hardly hangs around the womb for 40 weeks for the laugh - they do so because until week 23 they aren't viable. Up until week 32/34, the lungs are usually too immature to breath unaided when born.
    Pregnancy is 40 weeks long for a reason.

    It's incredibly quick considering the complexity of human biology. A baby will die outside the womb if not nurtured and looked after.


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


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Do you believe you have the right to your life? If so, when did that right begin?

    When he was born. They give you a certificate to commemorate the occasion and everything!

    Potential people should not be given rights at the expense of born, living citizens, unless the living citizen is happy to do so. It shouldn't even be up for discussion.


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    I listened to a woman on Newstalk one morning last week being interviewed about how she may vote in the referendum, she said she would be voting no.

    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?


    The yes campaigner was stuck for words tbh.

    I had an ectopic pregnancy. The embryo, which it was at the time, around 7 weeks pregnant, also had a heartbeat.
    It would have killed me.
    So, I don't see what a heartbeat has to do with it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    I would ask my friend what they CHOOSE.

    Human embryo can only become a living person in the presence of an accepting body. The woman chooses to not be that body.


    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.


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


    Pete29 wrote: »
    It's incredibly quick considering the complexity of human biology. A baby will die outside the womb if not nurtured and looked after.

    Yes, but the difference is that any consenting adult can nurture and look after a baby.
    Unfortunately, only the pregnant woman can gestate the pregnancy. We don't yet have technology to transfer a pregnancy to another woman and we don't have artificial wombs.

    Do you not think its a BIG ask, to require someone to gestate a pregnancy against their will, and indeed, give birth to and raise a child they do not want, just so your own personal morals on the issue are upheld? Especially when they might disagree with your viewpoint?
    Are you not expecting a lot of strangers you will never meet whose circumstances you do not know?

    Do you think that forcing that viewpoint (and subsequent pregnancy and baby) on society is in the best interests of women and babies?


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    Pete29 wrote: »
    The vast vast vast majority of pregnancies are consensual. We all know the main biological function of sex is reproduction. We all know there is a possibility of pregnancy when we have sex. We accept that risk when we consent to sex. Therefore, we consent to the possibility of pregnancy when we consent to sex. The choice comes before conception, not after.

    I do not consent to the possibility of pregnancy. That's why I take every precaution I can not to get pregnant.
    In your world, do people have sex just for procreation?
    In mine it's part of a loving full relationship, one where we don't want children.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    When he was born. They give you a certificate to commemorate the occasion and everything!

    Potential people should not be given rights at the expense of born, living citizens, unless the living citizen is happy to do so. It shouldn't even be up for discussion.


    Would it be ok to kill a baby 10 minutes before it's born then?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    Sin City wrote: »
    Im on the fence too , but leaning towards yes

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

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

    I can only think logically and philiosphically

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

    So im probably going to vote Yes

    PS Im also an atheist , not that my lack of beliefs should be a factor


  • Posts: 0 Selene Lemon Dean


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I had an ectopic pregnancy. The embryo, which it was at the time, around 7 weeks pregnant, also had a heartbeat.
    It would have killed me.
    So, I don't see what a heartbeat has to do with it?

    I "liked" your post for the meaning it conveys and, obviously, not the experience which you had to endure


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Would it be ok to kill a baby 10 minutes before it's born then?

    Is that what is being proposed?


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


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Would it be ok to kill a baby 10 minutes before it's born then?

    No, of course not. At that gestation the pregnancy would be terminated, not the baby. Its called an induction.

    Edited because I misread the question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Yes, but the difference is that any consenting adult can nurture and look after a baby.
    Unfortunately, only the pregnant woman can gestate the pregnancy. We don't yet have technology to transfer a pregnancy to another woman and we don't have artificial wombs.

    Do you not think its a BIG ask, to require someone to gestate a pregnancy against their will, and indeed, give birth to and raise a child they do not want, just so your own personal morals on the issue are upheld?

    Do you think that forcing that viewpoint (and subsequent pregnancy and baby) on society is in the best interests of women and babies?

    If poor, it would be no more than a few years before the kid would be accused of wanting everything for nothing, a forever home, not wanting to work etc. etc. a bane on the very conservative society forced it into existence. Not to mention the menace of the single mother...


  • Registered Users Posts: 657 ✭✭✭sally cinnamon89


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Would it be ok to kill a baby 10 minutes before it's born then?

    Picking the points you would like?


  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I do not consent to the possibility of pregnancy. That's why I take every precaution I can not to get pregnant.
    In your world, do people have sex just for procreation?
    In mine it's part of a loving full relationship, one where we don't want children.


    You know pregnancy is consequence of sex and there is a possibility and risk of pregnancy. That's why you use contraception right? You also know contraception is not risk free. There is still a small chance of pregnancy, but you accept this risk because you choose to have sex anyway. Ergo, you and you're partner are responsible for the pregnancy. You can't divorce sex from the possibility of pregnancy and the reproductive power you have.


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


    If poor, it would be no more than a few years before the kid would be accused of wanting everything for nothing, a forever home, not wanting to work etc. etc. a bane on the very conservative society forced it into existence. Not to mention the menace of the single mother...

    That's the irony of it. Pro-life but they don't give a monkeys about them as soon as they're born.
    Many, many of those who are staunchly pro-life are strangely completely against social welfare, against social housing, against regeneration investments in disadvantaged areas. Its bizarre.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Do you believe you have the right to your life? If so, when did that right begin?

    I believe the fetus has a right to life
    the question is does that right supersede the mother?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Is that what is being proposed?

    Could you answer the question, please?


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    Is this not just another abortion thread?


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


    Pete29 wrote: »
    You know pregnancy is consequence of sex and there is a possibility and risk of pregnancy. That's why you use contraception right? You also know contraception is not risk free. There is still a small chance of pregnancy, but you accept this risk because you choose to have sex anyway. Ergo, you and you're partner are responsible for the pregnancy. You can't divorce sex from the possibility of pregnancy and the reproductive power you have.

    So you're basically weaponising children into punishments for people whose contraception failed. Not very pro-life of you.
    Do you think its in the best interests of babies to be born to parents who do NOT want them?

    Children should not be seen as "consequences" - they should be loved and adored and cherished and wanted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Sin City wrote: »
    I believe the fetus has a right to life
    the question is does that right supersede the mother?

    They have an equal right to life, but in the case of the mother's life being in danger, her life must be protected. It's not killing the child, it's providing the medical treatment necessary to save her life with the unfortunate, unintentional consequence of the child dying as a result


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    Now in saying all this I do think there should be a line drawn where abortion should not be deemed a viable option.

    Where that lines is , will be anyones guess


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,972 ✭✭✭optogirl


    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.

    Who is having abortions on a whim? I honestly don't know anyone who would have an abortion on a whim.


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


    Pete29 wrote: »
    They have an equal right to life, but in the case of the mother's life being in danger, her life must be protected. It's not killing the child, it's providing the medical treatment necessary to save her life with the unfortunate, unintentional consequence of the child dying as a result

    That's the problem with the 8th. The line isn't clear. That's why women have died. And that's why we need to repeal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    So you're basically weaponising children into punishments for people whose contraception failed. Not very pro-life of you.
    Do you think its in the best interests of babies to be born to parents who do NOT want them.


    I'm not doing anything. I'm telling you we all have the responsibility to respect our own reproductive powers and not to create human life we have no intention of allowing to live. You cannot divorce sex from responsibility of it's natural consequences.


  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    That's the problem with the 8th. The line isn't clear. That's why women have died. And that's why we need to repeal.

    Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be pregnant.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,606 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be pregnant.

    Until something goes wrong


Advertisement