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]

Options
13567…24

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    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.
    I'm sorry to hear that.

    In saying that, thankfully you're still with us, (and this happened before any decision on the 8th amendment), as someone on the fence about it, I'm wondering if its necessary to repeal it at all now.
    So, I don't see what a heartbeat has to do with it?

    You do see.

    You even gave your own analogy to counter the one given by the lady I mentioned.


  • Options
    #63
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    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.


    Strawman. Nothing to do with the original argument.


  • Options
    #64
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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

    I don't think I should actually have to be DYING before I am given the medical treatment I require.
    Do you think you should?


  • Options
    #65
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


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

    Whim=choice


  • Options
    #66
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Pete29 wrote: »
    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.

    Yes, and in doing so, you are dismissing children into consequences to be bestowed onto people who should have been more careful or got caught out.

    And I don't believe that is in the best interests of babies or of women.

    Contraception fails, all the time, and preaching about it is of no use to someone who is already having a crisis pregnancy.

    The truth is that abortion on demand has always been in Ireland, and will continue to be, regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
    We've moved on from scalding baths and coat hangers to pills ordered online and Ryanair Departure gates.
    If you can afford a cheap flight or two pills, you can have an abortion on demand at any gestation you want.

    Voting No will change nothing and won't make it go away.
    Voting Yes will ensure that abortions happen at specific gestations, are supervised and regulated and our women are properly looked after.

    Its a no brainer for me. I care more about actual people, and trust them, than I do potential ones.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I'm sorry to hear that.

    In saying that, thankfully you're still with us, (and this happened before any decision on the 8th amendment), as someone on the fence about it, I'm wondering if its necessary to repeal it at all now.



    You do see.

    You even gave your own analogy to counter the one given by the lady I mentioned.

    No, I don't see what a heartbeat has to do with the right to life of an embryo or foetus. Mine had a heartbeat. The only reason I know this is because I had to undergo unnecessary surgery.
    I was not given a pill to treat it, as it was targeting the foetus.


  • Options
    #68
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I don't think I should actually have to be DYING before I am given the medical treatment I require.
    Do you think you should?


    The intentional killing of a human life, with no reference to protecting the life of the mother, is not medical treatment.


  • Options
    #69
    manonboard
    Registered Users Posts: 1,102 ✭✭✭manonboard


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    It is black and white . You should be able to make your own choices for yourself regarding your own body and health.

    So should everyone else ......

    I wouldn't agree with that. We operate in a society with vast inter dependencies. If one of those choices, ends up with the death of our gestating young. It is indeed something worthy of a conversation, a debate, and posed question to the society.
    Your actions often have an impact on the body and health of others, including abortion and taking of life.


  • Options
    #70
    LirW
    Registered Users Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    Hey Pete, do you have a sister, mother, wife, girlfriend or daughter? Just imagine one of them would end up in the horrible situation of getting raped. A few weeks later they find out they're pregnant. Do you rather want them to go through with this traumatic experience or would you want them to make a decision on their own on how to proceed and carry a rapists baby or not?
    Or imagine said lady you know is in abusive relationship, her partner controls her birth control (unfortunately a horrifyingly common situation in abusive relationships) and has sex with her she's not consenting to? Remember, most rapes happen within marriage or family. She fears for her own safety and can't imagine bringing a child into this volatile situation. I know personally of a case like that where the husband simply spared the womans abdominal area when she was pregnant after he raped her when he beat the ever-living cr4p out of her.
    Or imagine that this lady in your life has a medical condition where a pregnancy could turn into a live-threatening issue, yet her birth control failed and Boom, she is pregnant? Would you want her to go through with it and most probably risk her own life or should she have the option to choose her own safety?

    Saying that if you're choosing to have sex even if there's a minimal risk of pregnancy is ridiculous high-horsery, the human body needs sex to function properly mentally and physically. Lots of relationships break because of the lack of intimacy and sex. Let's get factual here, you're still driving a car even though there's a possibility of a fatal crash every time you get into a car.


  • Options
    #71
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


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

    Pregnant women do not have the ability to consent or withhold consent while receiving maternity care. Forced episiotimies (look it up), inductions and c-sections don't even begin to cover it.
    It isn't medical best practice. In every other area of medicine informed consent is needed before anything is done.

    And on top of that, I shouldn't have to be dying to receive treatment. That is unacceptable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sintend wrote: »
    Only 38 pregnancies ended in tragedy between 2009 and 2012.

    What?
    Only 38 women died?


  • Options
    #73
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    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.


    The point of you replying to my my post is what exactly?


  • Options
    #74
    ligerdub
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    Matt Barrett wrote:
    It all goes back to, 'If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one'. It's not forced abortions, it's choice. Anyone who wants one 'on demand' can go abroad however this is about Irish women having the right to choose in their own country, not to mention any medical issues that require the procedure be carried out. We cannot legislate a one rule for all policy regarding this. It should be up to the person with advice, not permission, from medical professionals on a case by case.


    It really doesn't. You might as well say "if you don't believe in selling heroin to children, don't sell heroin to children" as an argument to legalise that.

    You don't base laws and societal norms on your own personal preferences, if you did then there'd be chaos.

    This patter of "Don't believe in abortion, don't have one" and "it's happening whether you like it or not" are not good points and come from the school of those without logic.

    By all means stand behind a personal preference to allow choice regarding abortions, but can we move away from these facile "nothing to do with you" and "well other people are doing it" type stuff?

    Can we also front up the issue and accept there is a moral quandary to the argument and that a life does end with the procedure that abortion is?

    People can still be pro-choice but the sort of head in the sand, flawed logic support of it could be done without.


  • Options
    #75
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,975 ✭✭✭optogirl


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Whim=choice

    thanks for that Susie Dent but I think you're wrong


  • Options
    #76
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    The point of you replying to my my post is what exactly?

    To show you have no justification for your beliefs. You just believe what you want to believe.


  • Options
    #77
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Many people seem to think the pro-lifers are only the rabidly religious who want force their religion upon others. In my case, it's simply a values question. When does the right to a human being's life begin. When did the right to your life begin?

    Currently, in the event of repeal, the government is planning on introducing legislation which will allow the killing of human life up to twelve weeks gestation for ANY reason. After twelve weeks the proposed legislation allows for abortion in cases of risk to the mother's mental and physical health. Note that physical health is not defined and mental health is be treated as interchangeable with physical health.

    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.

    The 8th amendment allows for this: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

    The vast vast vast majority of pregnancies are consensual and healthy and Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to have children. This is the attempt of the Yes campaign to introduced abortion on demand in the name of female empowerment and progress.

    Vote No

    Who are you to decide what a woman does with her body?

    You are pregnant, and suffer with bad lungs. When you are pregnant in Ireland you MUST stop your lung medication for the 9 months, so your lung power may drop to 20% or less and you may die. I will force you to carry this pregnancy for 9 months.

    You live in Ireland and are at severe risk of developing cervical cancer. You are taking medication to prevent this. You become pregnant, you must in Ireland stop this medication, making it likely that you will develop cancer within 9 months. I will force you to carry this pregancy for 9 months.

    You are pregnant and are told that your baby will die and will not survive outside the womb. Instead of being able to have a humane abortion, you are told you must carry your baby for months more, waiting for him to die inside you. I will force you to carry this pregnancy for 9 months.

    These are all cases that I have read. The value of my life or your life has nothing to do with it. They are all individual cases. And in each case, I think the person should have the right to choose.


  • Options
    #78
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Pete29 wrote:
    It will develop further when not killed on a whim.


    Do you seriously believe a woman wakes up and decides it would be great craic to have an abortion today. I thought this type of nonsense commentary was consigned to the bin.
    It is a tough decision for any woman or couple to make, but is caused by a myriad of reasons not a 'whim' as you put it.


  • Options
    #79
    Sintend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭Sintend


    bubblypop wrote: »
    What?
    Only 38 women died?
    Yes sadly they did die but over 296,000 children were born safely in this country during that period 2009-2012


  • Options
    #80
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,917 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    I find the thread title confusing. I never in a million years thought that every eithoest would vote yes no more than I expect everyone that believes in God to vote no.


  • Options
    #81
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I'm sorry to hear that.

    In saying that, thankfully you're still with us, (and this happened before any decision on the 8th amendment), as someone on the fence about it, I'm wondering if its necessary to repeal it at all now.

    You do see.

    You even gave your own analogy to counter the one given by the lady I mentioned.

    A simple tablet can be taken to terminate an ectopic pregnancy. It works by inducing a miscarriage.
    Because of the 8th, and because ectopic embryos have a right to life, this tablet isn't allowed. Every other progressive country allows this tablet.

    Instead, women need to have painful, invasive surgery and she has to have either partial or all of her fallopian tube removed.
    This cuts her fertility in half. A woman died having this surgery as recently as 2015 .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    ligerdub wrote: »
    It really doesn't. You might as well say "if you don't believe in selling heroin to children, don't sell heroin to children" as an argument to legalise that.

    You don't base laws and societal norms on your own personal preferences, if you did then there'd be chaos.

    This patter of "Don't believe in abortion, don't have one" and "it's happening whether you like it or not" are not good points and come from the school of those without logic.

    By all means stand behind a personal preference to allow choice regarding abortions, but can we move away from these facile "nothing to do with you" and "well other people are doing it" type stuff?

    Can we also front up the issue and accept there is a moral quandary to the argument and that a life does end with the procedure that abortion is?

    People can still be pro-choice but the sort of head in the sand, flawed logic support of it could be done without.

    Would you be OK with being restricted in what procedures you can have based on my beliefs?


    Leave whatever moral quandary people have to make to them. Don't force people to live their lives based on what you want.


    These decisions are between a woman (or a couple) and her doctor and of no concern to me, you or anyone else


  • Options
    #83
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Do you seriously believe a woman wakes up and decides it would be great craic to have an abortion today. I thought this type of nonsense commentary was consigned to the bin.
    It is a tough decision for any woman or couple to make, but is caused by a myriad of reasons not a 'whim' as you put it.

    No I don't. By whim I meant choice.


  • Options
    #84
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Pete29 wrote:
    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.


    So in the case of rape where pregnancy is an end consequence, by your logic the woman should carry to term.


  • Options
    #85
    ligerdub
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    SusieBlue wrote:
    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.

    In none of those examples is anyone killed. It's almost like your completely casually thrown out and unsupported claim is irrelevant to the discussion.

    You're arguing there for some sort of socialist expansionary fiscal policy for some reason as somehow relevant to a debate on abortion. That's bizarre.


  • Options
    #86
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    So in the case of rape where pregnancy is an end consequence, by your logic the woman should carry to term.

    If you followed my reasoning I believe you would come to the opposite conclusion.


  • Options
    #87
    LirW
    Registered Users Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    So in the case of rape where pregnancy is an end consequence, by your logic the woman should carry to term.

    Sure, carry to term, it's a walk in the park after all and this will have no risk of any trauma whatsoever. You can always give it up for adoption :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Options
    #88
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Pete29 wrote:
    To show you have no justification for your beliefs. You just believe what you want to believe.


    I have no justification for my beliefs? what an arrogant comment to make. My beliefs are not subject to meeting your approval.


  • Options
    #89
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    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.

    Just because I walk past a homeless person on O'Connell street doesn't mean I have right to kill them just because they're poor.


  • Options
    #90
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    bubblypop wrote: »
    No, I don't see what a heartbeat has to do with the right to life of an embryo or foetus. Mine had a heartbeat. The only reason I know this is because I had to undergo unnecessary surgery.
    I was not given a pill to treat it, as it was targeting the foetus.

    Well (and this isn't my views, they were the views of the woman being interviewed).


    The yes campaigner dismissed the foetus/ unborn or whatever word one wants to describe the baby as being a human life, as it was yet to be born.

    The woman on the no side made the analogy of the foetus being fully formed are whatever gestation period (I don't recall exactly) having all its fingers and toes, etc etc and having a fully formed heart that was beating.

    They then went on to discuss how someone could dismiss a human with a beating heart as not a life (forgive me if this isn't word for word) given that someone can be officially declared dead based on their heart ceasing to beat.

    As I said, I'm on the fence, I'm not fussed on the notion of killing unborn children tbh, but equally if someone's life is at risk due to complications, I believe they should have the option made available to take whatever measures to protect the life of the mother.

    I am also a father to a few girls, and would want them to have a choice God forbid they ever needed to make one, due to complications etc.

    I'm yet to be convinced either way 100%, but one things for sure, I will choose based on my own research and merits, and not be influenced by people from either side of the debate dismissing lives, be it that of the mother or the unborn.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Pete29 wrote: »
    If you followed my reasoning I believe you would come to the opposite conclusion.

    And if you follow the reasoning that you should have no say in the health care of people that are not your dependants, then the world is a better place.

    Again, you decide what's best for you and let others do the same.


Advertisement