Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

LirW

ligerdub wrote: »

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.

It is somewhat relevant because crisis pregnancies or women genuinely not being able to afford their children have a significantly higher chance to depend on social welfare.
The issue isn't just as simple as saying, if you're poor, don't have sex.

SusieBlue

Pete29 wrote: »

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.

No, you don’t, because they are born living citizens and in no way comparable in any way to a pre 12 week gestated embryo.

Pete29

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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.

No, the killing of healthy, consensually created human lives is not something I can condone. It has it's own right to life. A right you created when you conceived it.

Hitman3000

Pete29 wrote:

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

I'm struggling to find any reasoning to your comments after you used the word 'whim'. You feel you can slate the beliefs of others yet feel you have a right to impose your own beliefs on others.
Now to find the block function before I get myself a ban.

SusieBlue

ligerdub wrote: »

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.

Don’t be obtuse. It’s actually hilarious that these who are vehemently defending the right to life for these unborn babies don’t give a crap about them as soon as they’re born.
You’d think if they were so keen on promoting life they’d be campaigning for better social housing, better childcare services, better support for single parents.
But they dont. Because they aren’t bothered so long as they’re born. Pro birth, not pro life.

DickSwiveller

Pete29 wrote: »

A tragic case, but not caused by the 8th. She was having a miscarriage, miscarriages on rare occasion have the possibility of causing the contraction of sepsis. In her case a particularly strong strain of anti-biotic resistant E.Coli which was mismanaged by the hospital staff that was treating here and was classed as "medical misadventure".

Public policies should reflect the vast majority of society and cases, not a tiny minority.

Don't bother. Its' been explained to them a thousand times yet they're still happy to use her death to further their cause.

Pete29

SusieBlue wrote: »

No, you don’t, because they are born living citizens and in no way comparable in any way to a pre 12 week gestated embryo.

But an unborn living citizen is ok to kill?

SusieBlue

Pete29 wrote: »

But an unborn living citizen is ok to kill?

How can an unborn fetus be a living citizen? Please explain.

Pete29

SusieBlue wrote: »

Don’t be obtuse. It’s actually hilarious that these who are vehemently defending the right to life for these unborn babies don’t give a crap about them as soon as they’re born.
You’d think if they were so keen on promoting life they’d be campaigning for better social housing, better childcare services, better support for single parents.
But they dont. Because they aren’t bothered so long as they’re born. Pro birth, not pro life.

Strawman and a silly one at that.

Just because someone isn't going to be born into a wealthy family doesn't mean you get to kill them.

SusieBlue

Pete29 wrote: »

Strawman and a silly one at that.

Just because someone isn't going to be born into a wealthy family doesn't mean you get to kill them.

Who said anything about wealth? It’s not a straw man. It’s extremely relevant.

Pretzill

Pete29 wrote: »

It's contains a human genome and it's life. Ergo, it's Human Life.

If this is the case **** is abortion just think of all those sperms who don't make it to conception and particularly the poor things that are left on the hanky.

Sintend

SusieBlue wrote: »

How can an unborn fetus be a living citizen? Please explain.

Geographical location doesn't determine whether something is alive or not!

Pete29

SusieBlue wrote: »

How can an unborn fetus be a living citizen? Please explain.

An unborn fetus is human life and has a right to exist. Citizenship is irrelevant. When did you start having the right to exist?

SusieBlue

Sintend wrote: »

Geographical location doesn't determine whether something is alive or not!

By geographical location do you you mean inside someone else’s body?

LirW

Pete29 wrote: »

Strawman and a silly one at that.

Just because someone isn't going to be born into a wealthy family doesn't mean you get to kill them.

No, but some people genuinely don't see how they have the means to raise a child, buried in debt, way too young and still in school and countless other examples. Child poverty is a real issue in Ireland and growing up as a really poor child myself, it's a really sh1t thing.

ligerdub

Guy:Incognito wrote:

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

I might not be, but somebody else might. Let's say it's my belief that if i see a nice wallet in somebodys coat that I'd quite like it and decide to put it in my coat.

I mean great for me if there's no consequences for that right? You might think that's great too, but the vast majority of people don't.

That's why we have a society.....so that collectively we decide what we want. You might not like it, but these are the sort of moral codes that are written down into things called laws.

I'm not on either side of this debate, but I find the facile stuff from the Yes side about as bad as the (minor) "God will be angry if you have an abortion" from the religious zealot No side.

I'm against **** arguments primarily, that's my side.

Mutant z

Well the no side can use all the scare tactics they want its not going to convince me to not vote yes.

SusieBlue

Pete29 wrote: »

An unborn fetus is human life and has a right to exist. Citizenship is irrelevant. When did you start having the right to exist?

I already answered that. When I was born.

And for the record, the government don’t even consider babies stillborn before 23 weeks to have existed.
No birth or death certificates are issued.
The government don’t even consider them to be people before that point, and that’s for wanted pregnancies.

Pete29

Pretzill wrote: »

If this is the case **** is abortion just think of all those sperms who don't make it to conception and particularly the poor things that are left on the hanky.

Sperm cells only contain half a human genome and cannot become infants when wanked into the world.

Sofiztikated

Pete29 wrote: »

An unborn fetus is human life and has a right to exist. Citizenship is irrelevant. When did you start having the right to exist?

Where does this right to exist come from?

Pete29

SusieBlue wrote: »

I already answered that. When I was born.

And for the record, the government don’t even consider babies stillborn before 23 weeks to have existed.
No birth or death certificates are issued.
The government don’t even consider them to be people before that point, and that’s for wanted pregnancies.

So it would have be ok to kill you one week before you were born?

The government's job is to protect human life and the 8th secures that.

Appledreams15

Pete29 wrote: »

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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.

No, the killing of healthy, consensually created human lives is not something I can condone. It has it's own right to life. A right you created when you conceived it.

So what about the baby that is not going to live outside the womb. That the mother has been told will be dead when she gives birth. Should she be forced to carry this baby for 9 months.

I read a case, where the woman said she thought she would lose her mind with grief and pain if she had to carry this baby that would not live for 9 months.

So she went to England for an abortion.

What do you think of cases like that?

Pete29

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Where does this right to exist come from?

It's a natural right.

SusieBlue

Pete29 wrote: »

So it would have be ok to kill you one week before you were born?

The government's job is to protect human life and the 8th secures that.

I already answered that too.
No it would not be ok to kill a baby one week before they were born.
No one is arguing in favour of that. At that gestation, an early delivery happens and the woman is induced and the baby is born.

SusieBlue

Sintend wrote: »

Exactly her body is not the babies body so why should she have the right to destroy it?

The baby cannot survive and thrive and grow without the woman as a willing host.
We don’t have artificial wombs.
We don’t have the ability to transfer a pregnancy to another.

At 12 weeks gestation the fetus is the size of a grape. At that point there is no conscience, sentience or personality or any other attribute we find in humans.
At that point, while it is completely reliant on her, it should be up to her what happens to it.

She should not have to sacrifice her bodily autonomy against her will to gestate a pregnancy she does not want just to keep you and your morals happy.

Pete29

Appledreams15 wrote: »

So what about the baby that is not going to live outside the womb. That the mother has been told will be dead when she gives birth. Should she be forced to carry this baby for 9 months.

I read a case, where the woman said she thought she would lose her mind with grief and pain if she had to carry this baby that would not live for 9 months.

So she went to England for an abortion.

What do you think of cases like that?

I think they're sad and I've met people personally in very similar situations and decided to have their children and spending what precious time they had with them. These are a tiny minority of cases.

I cannot condone the killing of, healthy, innocent, consensually conceived human lives which make up the vast majority of pregnancies.

SusieBlue

Pete29 wrote: »

I think they're sad and I've met people personally in very similar situations and decided to have their children and spending what precious time they had with them. These are a tiny minority of cases.

I cannot condone the killing of, healthy, innocent, consensually conceived human lives which make up the vast majority of pregnancies.

That’s great that they decided to have their children and spend that precious time with them, but other couples may choose differently and they should be accommodated.

Sofiztikated

Pete29 wrote: »

It's a natural right.

Ah, then you are going down a whole road that is way more than politics.

I've no absolute right to exist. If it had been warmer in my dads balls, it wouldn't be me that exists, and someone else.

But that's way above my pay grade to discuss.

Pete29

LirW wrote: »

No, but some people genuinely don't see how they have the means to raise a child, buried in debt, way too young and still in school and countless other examples. Child poverty is a real issue in Ireland and growing up as a really poor child myself, it's a really sh1t thing.

Would you rather not exist and have been killed than lived in a poor environment?

bodice ripper

Pete29 wrote:

It's a natural right.

God given by any other name...