Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Overheal

people_sheeple wrote: »

2 Questions for Yes voters:
1. If a woman told you she was 11 weeks pregnant would you say congratulations ?
If Yes, Why ?

2. Do you think its ok for a woman to take drugs and alcohol at 11 weeks pregnant ?
If No, Why ?

If she announced she was pregnant it stands to reason then she has made her choice to keep it. Congratulations are an appropriate response in that case.

If she has chosen to keep it then she should certainly not be harming its development with drugs or alcohol.

Zubeneschamali

people_sheeple wrote: »

so you voted and I assume you voted Yes ....that would make you a Yes Voter then wouldn't it ?

Correct, so your oh-so-provocative questions are too late. Either you win or I win - your pretend dialogue makes no matter now.

Wrongway1985

people_sheeple wrote: »

so you voted and I assume you voted Yes ....that would make you a Yes Voter then wouldn't it ?

I thought your conscience was clear? You voted, no reason to be inquisitive now.

people_sheeple

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Correct, so your oh-so-provocative questions are too late. Either you win or I win - your pretend dialogue makes no matter now.

True, but this is just for the purposes of the debate. how you voted is you own business , I don't wish to convert anyone.

people_sheeple

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

I thought your conscience was clear? You voted, no reason to be inquisitive now.

As above, I'm just interested in your response for the purposes of the debate. I respect (but don't agree with) your decision to vote Yes. You can engage in the discussion or not

people_sheeple

Overheal wrote: »

If she announced she was pregnant it stands to reason then she has made her choice to keep it. Congratulations are an appropriate response in that case.

If she has chosen to keep it then she should certainly not be harming its development with drugs or alcohol.

Thanks for your responses to the questions.

So I assume you know where I'm going with this ..
What i don't get is that...

Q1 - You congratulated her that she will be having a baby, but you still think it's OK to terminate that life.
Q2 - So its not OK to potentially harm that baby but it is ok to kill it

Wrongway1985

people_sheeple wrote: »

As above, I'm just interested in your response for the purposes of the debate. I respect (but don't agree with) your decision to vote Yes. You can engage in the discussion or not

I accept your right to vote,respect it? You must be joking

1) Why 11 weeks? The norm would be of course I would
2)No I do not condone drink or drugs while pregnant a lot of life affecting meds can harm child also so would have to come off them, doctors would have expectant mothers well versed obviously.

people_sheeple

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

I accept your right to vote,respect it? You must be joking

1) Why 11 weeks? The norm would be of course I would
2)No I do not condone drink or drugs while pregnant a lot of life affecting meds can harm child also so would have to come off them, doctors would have expectant mothers well versed obviously.

I think you know well why I picked 11 weeks. I picked 11 weeks because the proposal is that there will be abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.

so same responses
Q1 - You congratulated her that she will be having a baby, but you still think it's OK to terminate that life.
Q2 - So its not OK to potentially harm that baby but it is ok to kill it

Overheal

people_sheeple wrote: »

Thanks for your responses to the questions.

So I assume you know where I'm going with this ..
What i don't get is that...

Q1 - You congratulated her that she will be having a baby, but you still think it's OK to terminate that life.
Q2 - So its not OK to potentially harm that baby but it is ok to kill it

She should be able to choose to bring life into being. “Boyyyy, I brought you into this world and I will take you back out of it!” Is often the mad mom joke. But in reality yes it should be her right on finding she is pregnant to choose not to be. It is not ok to bring unnecessary harm to a baby that you plan to bring into the world no. Drugs and alcohol can impair it’s development and cause birth defects or even a miscarriage. If your plan is to disfigure and maim something you plan to raise as your child that seems like undue torture and abuse. A termination at most up to 12 weeks results in no torture by any means of the unborn, it is beyond that stage however that the brain begins to exhibit brainwave activity, so our ability to be certain there is no fetal pain becomes less clear beyond that.

people_sheeple

Overheal wrote: »

She should be able to choose to bring life into being. “Boyyyy, I brought you into this world and I will take you back out of it!” Is often the mad mom joke. But in reality yes it should be her right on finding she is pregnant to choose not to be. It is not ok to bring unnecessary harm to a baby that you plan to bring into the world no. Drugs and alcohol can impair it’s development and cause birth defects or even a miscarriage. If your plan is to disfigure and maim something you plan to raise as your child that seems like undue torture and abuse. A termination at most up to 12 weeks results in no torture by any means of the unborn, it is beyond that stage however that the brain begins to exhibit brainwave activity, so our ability to be certain there is no fetal pain becomes less clear beyond that.

I guess that's where we differ, to me a life has been created and its wrong to kill that life. My opposition to abortion is not based on whether or not the baby feels pain.

Overheal

people_sheeple wrote: »

I guess that's where we differ, to me a life has been created and its wrong to kill that life. My opposition to abortion is not based on whether or not the baby feels pain.

Where I differ there is that life as we will agree to call it for these purposes is claimed to begin at conception. If that’s true then to be in total opposition to ending or interfering with that life you’d also have to be against the MAP, as well as the 28-day pills, both of which to the best of my knowledge interfere with the ability of the blastocyst to attach to the uterine wall, thus causing it to be passed out of the body. I would feel that in order to believe in life at conception - and especially the sanctity of that life - I’d also have to be against most forms of female contraception and I’m simply not opposed to them.

Wrongway1985

people_sheeple wrote: »

I think you know well why I picked 11 weeks. I picked 11 weeks because the proposal is that there will be abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.

so same responses
Q1 - You congratulated her that she will be having a baby, but you still think it's OK to terminate that life.
Q2 - So its not OK to potentially harm that baby but it is ok to kill it

On demand is a red herring, people have been asked what it means to different posters and have gotten multiple responses but all signs point to be shoned to another country for this "demand" you can even access abortion here via pills and bleed out in a lonely bathroom somewhere these are the smashing alternatives no voters with "clear consciences" voted to persist with.

Q1 - Unlikely congratulations would be in play if that were the case, I wouldn't shone anyone offer all the support I can the life of her shouldn't play a balancing act with the foetus.
Q2 - Terminating a pregnancy and killing are not remotely on the level you seem to think they are.

people_sheeple

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

On demand is a red herring, people have been asked what it means to different posters and have gotten multiple responses but all signs point to be shoned to another country for this "demand" you can even access abortion here via pills and bleed out in a lonely bathroom somewhere these are the smashing alternatives no voters with "clear consciences" voted to persist with.

Q1 - Unlikely congratulations would be in play if that were the case, I wouldn't shone anyone offer all the support I can the life of her shouldn't play a balancing act with the foetus.
Q2 - Terminating a pregnancy and killing are not remotely on the level you seem to think they are.

Importing abortion pills is illegal. A woman's decision to take abortion pills without medical supervision is risking their own health. Again, a decision they took, individuals are primarily responsible for their own health.
Just because a significant number of women do it, doesn't make it right.

Re Q1 you missed the point. You congratulated the woman because she is going to have a baby, yet in your opinion its still ok to kill that baby before 12 weeks.

Re Q2 Even if we take the the loosest definition of the life (eg by Dr Ciara Kelly) as a 'bunch of cells' you are still killing them.'Termination' is just a term used to avoid using the term 'killing'

people_sheeple

Overheal wrote: »

Where I differ there is that life as we will agree to call it for these purposes is claimed to begin at conception. If that’s true then to be in total opposition to ending or interfering with that life you’d also have to be against the MAP, as well as the 28-day pills, both of which to the best of my knowledge interfere with the ability of the blastocyst to attach to the uterine wall, thus causing it to be passed out of the body. I would feel that in order to believe in life at conception - and especially the sanctity of that life - I’d also have to be against most forms of female contraception and I’m simply not opposed to them.

So to answer your question, in my opinion life starts when a fertilised egg has been implanted in the wall of the uterus, then you have all the conditions necessary for the baby to grow and develop. So i have no issue with contraceptives or MAP.

Wrongway1985

people_sheeple wrote: »

Importing abortion pills is illegal. A woman's decision to take abortion pills without medical supervision is risking their own health. Again, a decision they took, individuals are primarily responsible for their own health.
Just because a significant number of women do it, doesn't make it right.

Re Q1 you missed the point. You congratulated the woman because she is going to have a baby, yet in your opinion its still ok to kill that baby before 12 weeks.

Re Q2 Even if we take the the loosest definition of the life (eg by Dr Ciara Kelly) as a 'bunch of cells' you are still killing them.'Termination' is just a term used to avoid using the term 'killing'

It is illegal but the law isn't enforced so it's an obvious dud and unnecessary law. They are responsible for their own health but you decided to limit options I would prefer safer myself.

Q1&2- I didn't miss the point I said under normal circumstances I'd congratulate. Your point is to promote terminations of pregnancy as killing I get it you weirdo.

Enzokk

people_sheeple wrote: »

2 Questions for Yes voters:
1. If a woman told you she was 11 weeks pregnant would you say congratulations ?
If Yes, Why ?

2. Do you think its ok for a woman to take drugs and alcohol at 11 weeks pregnant ?
If No, Why ?

I'll play this game.

1. Do I know this woman? If I don't then I would just look at a stranger funnily and walk off. If I do I will congratulate her on becoming pregnant. If she delivers a healthy baby then I will congratulate her on having a baby. Spot the difference?

2. No, but I also don't think people should be allowed to smoke or drink alcohol at any stage of the lives but I don't try to interfere with personal choices. See what I did there?

people_sheeple

Enzokk wrote: »

I'll play this game.

1. Do I know this woman? If I don't then I would just look at a stranger funnily and walk off. If I do I will congratulate her on becoming pregnant. If she delivers a healthy baby then I will congratulate her on having a baby. Spot the difference?

2. No, but I also don't think people should be allowed to smoke or drink alcohol at any stage of the lives but I don't try to interfere with personal choices. See what I did there?

1- its quite amusing the way you are skirting around the issue. So you are congratulating her that she will in all likely hood be having a baby, yet you still think its ok to kill that same baby, I cant reason with that, sorry.
2- ok same point to you as the others, you think its wrong to potentially harm a baby at say 11 weeks but its ok to kill that same baby

people_sheeple

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

It is illegal but the law isn't enforced so it's an obvious dud and unnecessary law. They are responsible for their own health but you decided to limit options I would prefer safer myself.

Q1&2- I didn't miss the point I said under normal circumstances I'd congratulate. Your point is to promote terminations of pregnancy as killing I get it you weirdo.

ah I see you've resorted to name calling and you still haven't countered any of my augments.
By the way attempts are being made to enforce the law, a quick google shows it is

Wrongway1985

people_sheeple wrote: »

ah I see you've resorted to name calling and you still haven't countered any of my augments.
By the way attempts are being made to enforce the law, a quick google shows it is

I find your argument is to insist termination of pregnancy equates the same as murder absurd and yes very very weird.

Enzokk

people_sheeple wrote: »

1- its quite amusing the way you are skirting around the issue. So you are congratulating her that she will in all likely hood be having a baby, yet you still think its ok to kill that same baby, I cant reason with that, sorry.
2- ok same point to you as the others, you think its wrong to potentially harm a baby at say 11 weeks but its ok to kill that same baby

1 - I think you are almost getting it. You choose not to reason with me. I respect your choice even if I don't agree with it. Do you see it yet?

2 - I assume you see a baby at conception seeing as you keep referring to babies when talking about foetuses. Be careful of that type of reasoning though. You would have to accuse babies of trying to kill their own mothers in some circumstances.

Wrongway1985

So landslide victory if that's the case with the whole country I think it's fair to say Aethiests voting No can be classified endangered species the posts here never really suggested otherwise anyhow

/Thread.

nozzferrahhtoo

Pete29 wrote: »

You can't get blood from a stone, I guess.

Or debate from someone who has no points to make it seems.

people_sheeple wrote: »

1. If a woman told you she was 11 weeks pregnant would you say congratulations ?If Yes, Why ?
2. Do you think its ok for a woman to take drugs and alcohol at 11 weeks pregnant ? If No, Why ?

The answer to both questions for me would be "That entirely depends on whether she wishes to be pregnant, and intends to go forward with the pregnancy."

Maybe if you can provide those details, I can provide my answers.

blanch152

people_sheeple wrote: »

So to answer your question, in my opinion life starts when a fertilised egg has been implanted in the wall of the uterus, then you have all the conditions necessary for the baby to grow and develop. So i have no issue with contraceptives or MAP.

It is strange how many people changed their view that life started at conception to life started at implantation, once the MAP was approved. A bit like the desperate attempts of the NO campaign in the last week to pretend they were ok with difficult cases.

Not saying you are one of those.

Wrongway1985

blanch152 wrote: »

It is strange how many people changed their view that life started at conception to life started at implantation, once the MAP was approved. A bit like the desperate attempts of the NO campaign in the last week to pretend they were ok with difficult cases.

Not saying you are one of those.

Even the church don't believe life is at conception, they do not baptise embryos or miscarriages

blanch152

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Even the church don't believe life is at conception, they do not baptise embryos or miscarriages

The Pro-Life campaign of the 1980s was against the Morning-After Pill on the basis of life beginning at conception. It was the slippery slope.

people_sheeple

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Or debate from someone who has no points to make it seems.



The answer to both questions for me would be "That entirely depends on whether she wishes to be pregnant, and intends to go forward with the pregnancy."

Maybe if you can provide those details, I can provide my answers.

so suppose she wants to keep the baby

people_sheeple

blanch152 wrote: »

It is strange how many people changed their view that life started at conception to life started at implantation, once the MAP was approved. A bit like the desperate attempts of the NO campaign in the last week to pretend they were ok with difficult cases.

Not saying you are one of those.

I'm not

SuperRabbit

We fought our way up the slippery slope, we started at the bottom. Now, finally, we are respected full human beings and not a means to an end.

I don't see why a sperm is not a live or an egg is not alive if a sperm + an egg is. I think there's a very clear difference between a live egg and a dead egg. And don't we say the sperm "can live" in the body for 3 days? So life begins before conception, obviously.

people_sheeple

Enzokk wrote: »

1 - I think you are almost getting it. You choose not to reason with me. I respect your choice even if I don't agree with it. Do you see it yet?

2 - I assume you see a baby at conception seeing as you keep referring to babies when talking about foetuses. Be careful of that type of reasoning though. You would have to accuse babies of trying to kill their own mothers in some circumstances.

Ok I'll try some more reasoning then..

So for the sake of the argument:
A. Do you think the act of abortion is right in all cases and respect the right of the woman to choose ?
or
B. Do you think the act of abortion is right in some cases and wrong in other cases but still respect the right of the woman to choose ?
or
C. Do you think the act of abortion is wrong in all cases but still respect the right of the woman to choose ?

nozzferrahhtoo

people_sheeple wrote: »

so suppose she wants to keep the baby

In that stage I would see no reason not to congratulate her on reaching the first stage in a further life plan, and I would indeed expect her to make all the moves possible to commit to making the healthiest result possible for all concerned by avoiding the intake of chemicals that are not required, and would put the quality of the process, and it's results, in jeopardy.