Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Mrsmum

robindch wrote: »

Yes. I wrote two sentences - the first sentence says exactly what you've said here (thanks ) and that the OP has never posted in A+A (you missed that bit).

And the second sentence asks the OP to drop by and contribute to the ongoing thread on abortion as the OP is unique in claiming to be an atheist who is anti-abortion - a position which is, to the best of my recollection, completely unique and therefore interesting.

I hope this clarification clears things up for you!

I find it shocking that a mod on the A&A forum should have as a fundamental belief that all atheists are pro abortion to the point that you think an anti abortion atheist is unique ! That notion is beyond narrowminded.

Sofiztikated

Mrsmum wrote: »

I find it shocking that a mod on the A&A forum should have as a fundamental belief that all atheists are pro abortion to the point that you think an anti abortion atheist is unique ! That notion is beyond narrowminded.

Based on that thread, a pro birth atheist is unique.

Mrsmum

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Based on that thread, a pro birth atheist is unique.

Well if that is so, it completely discredits that thread as realistic of viewpoints of atheists in general. Same as there is Catholics and every other Church on both sides, the same is true for atheists.

blanch152

MightyMandarin wrote: »

You're missing the entire point of why people are voting no.

Their point is that you nor anyone else deserves the right to say whether someone else should live or die.

It's not about 'deciding according to one's own moral conscience' - it's about society (in this case, Irish society) declaring that in respecting the very existence of an unborn child, we believe that in most cases it has the right to live just like any other human does.

Unless evidence can be shown as to that either:
a) the unborn is not a person, and as such should not have a right to life
or
b) that this person is so beneath us that we - as born persons - reserve the right to deny their existence

- then there is no conclusive argument in favour of repealing Art.40.3.3.

I have yet to have a single person prove either of these points to me, and as such can see no reason why Art.40.3.3. should not exist in the Constitution.

The whole debate thus far has been disappointing to say the least, as there has been no real discussion of the ethical and moral issues here - which are at the forefront of a constitutional debate. I must say I am disappointed at the sheer lack of academic discussion on this issue in the media, and online.

You clearly misunderstand the nature of the 8th Amendment - and I am not surprised given the clear mistaken propaganda of the NO campaign.

It is not about giving the unborn the right to life like every other human being. The issue is about the equality of that right to life with the right to life of the mother and the conflict with other rights that women have such as the right to bodily integrity and the right to choose and the appropriate balance between all of those rights.

Taking it out of Ireland, to a Canadian context, here is an interesting article on how different rights "compete" or conflict:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-competing-human-rights/4-what-are-competing-rights

In essence, by fixing the balance in a particular and unchanging way in the Constitution, the 8th Amendment results in unintended consequences and very harsh results for individual women. It has already had to be amended to allow for the right to travel and the right to information which conflicted with it already. The dangers of further amendments to allow for the right to bodily integrity or the right to choose, is that they could really allow for unrestricted abortion.

The only legally safe way to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the rights reflecting the views of society at any one point in time is to remove the 8th from the Constitution and for the Dail to legislate in respect of the issue.

blanch152

SusieBlue wrote: »

Ok, can you please quote exactly where in the constitution it said that the unborn had a right to life before the 8th amendment was introduced?

I’m pretty confident I’ve done more research on this topic than you have if that post is anything to go by.

The 8th Amendment was brought in to recognise the equal right to life of the unborn, not to introduce a right to life that wasn't already there.

In the same way there is no particular clause in the Constitution that says a man, a child, a blind person, someone who wears brown shoes, or a person aged over 90 have a right to life other than the general right to life, the question remains as to why the unborn require special protection that other forms of life do not? The only answer is that a male-dominated society doesn't want to trust women who carry babies in their womb.

blanch152

Standman wrote: »

As an atheist myself, it has always irked me a bit that there seems to be a general assumption that if you are anti-abortion, you must be religious. It's a very complex issue, there will be all kinds of people on both sides of the fence.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I find it shocking that a mod on the A&A forum should have as a fundamental belief that all atheists are pro abortion to the point that you think an anti abortion atheist is unique ! That notion is beyond narrowminded.

I think what he is saying (and I agree with him) that an atheist who is pro-life is in a very small minority and unique to these boards in that he hasn't experienced one on here before. He was then extending an invitation to the pro-life atheist to contribute to a thread in the A&A forum so that he could enlighten other atheists with his views.

That invitation shows the opposite of narrowmindedness. It will be interesting to see if the OP actually displays the broadminded ability to contribute there.

oscarBravo

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The whole debate thus far has been disappointing to say the least, as there has been no real discussion of the ethical and moral issues here - which are at the forefront of a constitutional debate.

Why would ethical and moral issues be at the forefront of a constitutional debate? Surely legal issues should be foremost? Such as, should we attempt to shoehorn complex ethical and moral issues into a couple of short paragraphs of constitutional law? Is it appropriate for an electorate to deny future governments, representative of the views of future electorates, the right to enact legislation to meet the requirements of the electorate of the day?

Standman wrote: »

As an atheist myself, it has always irked me a bit that there seems to be a general assumption that if you are anti-abortion, you must be religious. It's a very complex issue, there will be all kinds of people on both sides of the fence.

There may well be, but I'm leaning heavily to the view that the OP is being disingenuous in claiming to be an atheist. I think it's a dishonest attempt to portray what is self-evidently a religiously-informed view on reproductive rights as one arrived at independently.

It's already been pointed out that some of the OP's views are perfectly aligned with Catholic dogma on the topic. Beyond that, there's the whole "you chose to have sex, so deal with the consequences" attitude that none too subtly implies punishment for sin.

I'm OK with someone being anti-choice for religious reasons. I disagree with it, but as far as it goes it's a relatively valid reason. I'm not OK with them being dishonest about it.

Mrsmum

blanch152 wrote: »

I think what he is saying (and I agree with him) that an atheist who is pro-life is in a very small minority and unique to these boards in that he hasn't experienced one on here before. He was then extending an invitation to the pro-life atheist to contribute to a thread in the A&A forum so that he could enlighten other atheists with his views.

That invitation shows the opposite of narrowmindedness. It will be interesting to see if the OP actually displays the broadminded ability to contribute there.

The invitation isn't narrowminded, I agree. The notion that all atheists think as one is.

blanch152

Mrsmum wrote: »

The invitation isn't narrowminded, I agree. The notion that all atheists think as one is.

The notion that all atheists think as one on the issue was clearly based on his experience in the A&A forum where a large number of them gather. The invitation clearly displays an openmindedness to consider the alternative point of view. A very healthy position to adopt.

It is akin to a local bishop inviting pro-choice Catholics to set out their views and their reasons for their views in a letter to be read out at all Masses. I am not holding my breath for that kind of openness from our Catholic brethern.

KyussB

The actual complexities of the entire abortion argument - which are genuinely morally/ethically ambiguous, to a huge extent - by necessity get distilled down to just a few edge cases, where practicality demands relatively unrestricted abortion, as there is simply no workable way to legislate in any different manner, without causing great harm to individual people.

Doesn't matter what your religious or non-religious views are, or even your views regarding womens rights - these practicalities and edge cases, are what it comes down to - and they can't be dismissed due to being a minority, these are the edge cases that decide the whole matter.

It is cases such as pregnancy through rape, severe issues that guarantee a debilitating or short life for the child, and threat to the mothers life or health, which - combined - leave no practical way of avoiding relatively unrestricted abortion laws.

It's all rather simple. It doesn't take much thought to see that these are the most solid arguments, and easiest to grasp. You don't have to delve into any morally ambiguous territory, to see that a Yes vote here, is the right vote - no matter your other views or values.

blanch152

KyussB wrote: »

The actual complexities of the entire abortion argument - which are genuinely morally/ethically ambiguous, to a huge extent - by necessity get distilled down to just a few edge cases, where practicality demands relatively unrestricted abortion, as there is simply no workable way to legislate in any different manner, without causing great harm to individual people.

Doesn't matter what your religious or non-religious views are, or even your views regarding womens rights - these practicalities and edge cases, are what it comes down to - and they can't be dismissed due to being a minority, these are the edge cases that decide the whole matter.

It is cases such as pregnancy through rape, severe issues that guarantee a debilitating or short life for the child, and threat to the mothers life or health, which - combined - leave no practical way of avoiding relatively unrestricted abortion laws.

It's all rather simple. It doesn't take much thought to see that these are the most solid arguments, and easiest to grasp. You don't have to delve into any morally ambiguous territory, to see that a Yes vote here, is the right vote - no matter your other views or values.

The only people who should vote NO are those who believe in a Catholic state for Catholic people and those who believe in the oppression of women.

Anyone who supports any form of restricted abortion should vote YES and hope that the legislators can tightly define a form of restricted abortion in lengthy legislation that isn't unwieldy in practice.

Anyone who supports the right to choose or the right to bodily integrity should obviously vote YES.

upandcumming

blanch152 wrote: »

The only people who should vote NO are those who believe in a Catholic state for Catholic people and those who believe in the oppression of women.

Nonsense.

blanch152

upandcumming wrote: »

Nonsense.

There are no other credible reasons for voting NO.

robindch

Standman wrote: »

As an atheist myself, it has always irked me a bit that there seems to be a general assumption that if you are anti-abortion, you must be religious. It's a very complex issue, there will be all kinds of people on both sides of the fence.

Yes, it's a complex issue and that's why I've asked the OP to drop by A+A as his/her position is either common (but not seen in A+A) or uncommon (explaining why it's not seen in A+A).

Mrsmum wrote: »

I find it shocking that a mod on the A&A forum should have as a fundamental belief that all atheists are pro abortion to the point that you think an anti abortion atheist is unique ! That notion is beyond narrowminded.

What's narrow-minded - or quite silly, depending upon one's taste - is your assumption that I've made such an idiotic claim. Please read it again.

I've pointed out that OP hasn't posted in A+A and that the OP's position is, in my experience of atheists, unique. This does not imply that I believe that "all atheists are pro abortion" or that "an anti abortion atheist is unique", since I have not asked all atheists to confirm their beliefs, nor have all atheists posted in A+A, nor can I confirm that the atheists who have posted in A+A, or who have told me their beliefs, are accurately representing their actual beliefs. Nor am I entirely sure that the OP is accurately representing their views about atheism as they seem, at best, ill-thought out.

I hope this deshocks your shock!

MayoAreMagic

blanch152 wrote: »

There are no other credible reasons for voting NO.

Well to my mind the crux of a lot of the disagreement on the topic seems to centre of whether a <12 week unborn foetus is equivalent to a person or not. I have to say, I'm finding that question hard to answer definitively.
However, how far do you take that? For example, is wearing a condom, technically, all that different? Like what is the difference between removing a fertilized egg, and deliberately preventing an egg from being fertilized (where ultimately, both expire in a similar fashion). A lot of the No campaign logic, can be applied to that scenario also, so it isn't really consistant.

However, I believe an all important point that is lost on the argument of the No campaign, is that anyone who wants to have an abortion is already doing so and will continue to do so regardless of the result. For that reason, I don't see where a lot of the stuff they are saying in the campaign, is coming from.

I do find some of their propaganda a bit hard to swallow though. For example, this undertone of 'look at those auld brits over there with their lack of morals (insert dodgey looking statistic to suggest this point), we will end up like them if we aren't careful'. It is a deliberate attempt to play on old biases that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. To my mind that is poor form.
Similarly, the one where they say 'well you cant let the politicians decide the legislation' as if our politicians are these baby seal-clubbing extremists who are secretly hell-bent on bringing in abortions at every possible juncture once given control. Like politicians have daughters, sisters, mother and/or are women themselves too.
I don't think it is doing them any favours either - there is a bit of desperation about that stuff.

How ever this vote goes, the next vote I would like to see is on putting an end to campaigns. They are unhelpful and as far as I can see, only attempt to muddy the waters to suit themselves. We would be far better served with a government led delivery of honest information for both sides of the argument.

Zubeneschamali

Standman wrote: »

What's it got to do with religion?

That quote from the OP (the atheist in the title) is the Catholic double effect dogma. It is odd to see a professed atheist parroting dogma which is rejected by every Protestant ethos hospital, never mind the various non-Christian faiths before you get anywhere near the humanists and atheists.

An ex-Catholic atheist like myself may know this, but not even an ex-Catholic atheist would pretend this dogma is in any way sensible.

So, is the OP actually a Catholic, an atheist so steeped in Catholic upbringing that they don't see it, or an atheist pretending to believe this for some obvious reason?

Wrongway1985

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, is the OP actually a Catholic, an atheist so steeped in Catholic upbringing that they don't see it, or an atheist pretending to believe this for some obvious reason?

Mentioned a view posts back one of OPs first posts on boards is regarding to Relgion subject for leaving cert. Now of course nothing suggest he didn't change views in the resulting years but it does strike suspect that maybe the notion of claiming to be atheist embedded in the thread title would gain more traction when he's anything but?

ironingbored

Jordan Rapid Scrabble wrote: »

I think that who was marginally worse depends on your point of view

Boylan saying that a 12 week old foetus wasn't fully formed appears to be a lie to me.
I read the opposite sitting in the rotunda with my wife for her appointments

Then why on earth is gestation not 12 weeks?!

SuperRabbit

Yes there are anti-choice atheists. I've been an atheist since I was 14 but I've only been pro-choice since I was 18. First I was convinced of the fact that with all the awful and unspeakable suffering in the world, we should prioritise taking care of the people who are already here rather than worrying about a 12 week old fetus, 2 inches in length. I felt that first we would make the world safe for everyone, get food and water and education and health for everyone, and THEN start worrying about abortion.

So it started with logic, but then as I grew older I got more and more empathetic and this got reinforced, you just can't have empathy and vote no. The 8th denies absolutely everyone, regardless of circumstances, a choice about their lives and their health. Voting no means no exceptions, you just can't have empathy and do that. Why do people think the women in their lives would have an abortion that wasn't absolutely necessary? Nobody wants to have an abortion. Right now people are being forced to risk their health by doing it at home in their own bathroom, or going to England. This is just punishing people needlessly.

Zubeneschamali

ironingbored wrote: »

Then why on earth is gestation not 12 weeks?!

And Lo, the fetus gestated from week 1 to week 12, and on the 13th week he rested.

Also weeks 14-40, resting there too.

SuperRabbit

ironingbored wrote: »

Then why on earth is gestation not 12 weeks?!

It's vaguely human shaped. Its nervous system is just starting to form, and prior to 12 weeks it had a 50% chance of miscarriage. Compare this to a 40 year old woman with a fully developed nervous system and all her organs, 4 kids, hopes, dreams, an education, dependants, parents, loved ones, employees, a cat.

The government proposal is abortion up to 12 weeks with the help of a doctor, instead of with a pill in the bathroom like now. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON. We are voting to repeal the 8th, the 8th means no exceptions for anyone. If you think there should be any exceptions, or you think women should be allowed to make health decisions about their health which are not related to abortion, you have to vote Yes.

You can fight the government proposal afterwards, make it stricter if you want, but that's not what we are voting on. Look how long it took to legislate for the X case, all thanks to people who believed there should be no exceptions! i.e. no voters. You can be sure they will fight to keep this very restrictive.
We have to repeal the 8th, it is having very negative outcomes for people's health, check out "Disabled people for choice" and "disabled people together for yes" for some personal accounts, "in her shoes" too. This is not a black and white issue, there is only space for black and white issues in the constitution. If you think there should be any exceptions at all, you have to vote Yes.

Mrsmum

Mrsmum wrote: »

I find it shocking that a mod on the A&A forum should have as a fundamental belief that all atheists are pro abortion to the point that you think an anti abortion atheist is unique ! That notion is beyond narrowminded.

They said no such thing; they are inviting atheists of different views to contribute to the discussion, on that forum, as currently there are no vocal No voices

blanch152

SuperRabbit wrote: »

It's vaguely human shaped. Its nervous system is just starting to form, and prior to 12 weeks it had a 50% chance of miscarriage. Compare this to a 40 year old woman with a fully developed nervous system and all her organs, 4 kids, hopes, dreams, an education, dependants, parents, loved ones, employees, a cat.

The government proposal is abortion up to 12 weeks with the help of a doctor, instead of with a pill in the bathroom like now. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON. We are voting to repeal the 8th, the 8th means no exceptions for anyone. If you think there should be any exceptions, or you think women should be allowed to make health decisions about their health which are not related to abortion, you have to vote Yes.

You can fight the government proposal afterwards, make it stricter if you want, but that's not what we are voting on. Look how long it took to legislate for the X case, all thanks to people who believed there should be no exceptions! i.e. no voters. You can be sure they will fight to keep this very restrictive.
We have to repeal the 8th, it is having very negative outcomes for people's health, check out "Disabled people for choice" and "disabled people together for yes" for some personal accounts, "in her shoes" too. This is not a black and white issue, there is only space for black and white issues in the constitution. If you think there should be any exceptions at all, you have to vote Yes.

Absolutely agree with this.

And this is an example of where the NO campaign are dreadfully wrong. The right to life of the unborn continues once the 8th is removed, what is removed is the equal right to life of the unborn to the mother. Your explanation of the difference between a mother and a fetus is clearly why they shouldn't have an equal right to life.

For Forks Sake

optogirl wrote: »

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

It's the No-bots phrase of the day. I have seen/heard the phrase "social abortions" more times in the past 24 hours than I had in my 38 years on the planet.

corny

Thread turning into a circle jerk.

SuperRabbit

You could add to the discussion rather than throwing in a random Americanism and riding off into the sunset.

Sofiztikated

For Forks Sake wrote: »

It's the No-bots phrase of the day. I have seen/heard the phrase "social abortions" more times in the past 24 hours than I had in my 38 years on the planet.

There was fun with obstreperous yesterday, so much so that I can't spell it any more.

Overheal

SuperRabbit wrote: »

You could add to the discussion rather than throwing in a random Americanism and riding off into the sunset.

Circle jerk is an Americanism?

Jesus, just how badly did we wreck the planet

Pete29

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That quote from the OP (the atheist in the title) is the Catholic double effect dogma. It is odd to see a professed atheist parroting dogma which is rejected by every Protestant ethos hospital, never mind the various non-Christian faiths before you get anywhere near the humanists and atheists.

An ex-Catholic atheist like myself may know this, but not even an ex-Catholic atheist would pretend this dogma is in any way sensible.

So, is the OP actually a Catholic, an atheist so steeped in Catholic upbringing that they don't see it, or an atheist pretending to believe this for some obvious reason?

Like most people in Ireland, I was raised in a Catholic family. My attitudes to the religion and God changed as I grew. I chose to study religion in secondary school because I wanted to learn more about the philosophy of religion and Christianity itself. I would say I became an agnostic atheist around the age of nineteen. I couldn't justify a personal belief in a theistic God. Could there be a God? Sure, maybe - it depends what your definition of God is, but we don't seem to be able to claim any knowledge of it. Withholding belief seems the most appropriate response.

None of this is really relevant to this discussion however. What matters is the argument at hand - dismissing any argument as religious and therefore not worthy of contemplation is dishonest. Subscribing to certain values is not the same as being religious just because a religion subscribes to those same values. The Catholic church believes murder is wrong. Most Atheist's believe murder is wrong: Does this mean most Atheists are secretly harboring Catholic views? Hardly. You can make perfectly coherent secular arguments against murder.

My argument is that once an embryo implants itself in the uterus, it is wrong to intentionally kill that life, because when left to its natural processes it will become a human infant. To kill it is to rob it of its natural potential and it's current right to life to fulfill that potential.

blanch152

Pete29 wrote: »

My argument is that once an embryo implants itself in the uterus, it is wrong to intentionally kill that life, because when left to its natural processes it will become a human infant. To kill it is to rob it of its natural potential and it's current right to life to fulfill that potential.

That is scientifically incorrect.

It is not the natural processes of the embryo which enable it to become a human infant, it is the natural processes of the mother. To illustrate, consider a woman who dies ten seconds after an embryo implants itself in the uterus. It dies also.

Your analysis is also based on an unbridled and unrestricted right to life. Yet no other class of human holds such a right. If I went to China and smuggled drugs, my right to life would be forfeit, so you are arguing that a ten-second old embryo has greater rights than mine.

Your position is helpful to the debate as it demonstrates the absurdity of the pro-life position, once you strip away the religious language around it.

Pete29

SuperRabbit wrote: »

Yes there are anti-choice atheists. I've been an atheist since I was 14 but I've only been pro-choice since I was 18. First I was convinced of the fact that with all the awful and unspeakable suffering in the world, we should prioritise taking care of the people who are already here rather than worrying about a 12 week old fetus, 2 inches in length.

A human life is not a choice. It's a human life. The choice comes when choosing to engage in sex and consenting to the possibility of creating a human life.

I felt that first we would make the world safe for everyone, get food and water and education and health for everyone, and THEN start worrying about abortion

Would that justify killing you in the womb or a mad man kidnapping a woman with a planned pregnancy and performing an abortion because 'there aren't enough resources in the world'

So it started with logic, but then as I grew older I got more and more empathetic and this got reinforced, you just can't have empathy and vote no. The 8th denies absolutely everyone, regardless of circumstances, a choice about their lives and their health. Voting no means no exceptions, you just can't have empathy and do that. Why do people think the women in their lives would have an abortion that wasn't absolutely necessary? Nobody wants to have an abortion. Right now people are being forced to risk their health by doing it at home in their own bathroom, or going to England. This is just punishing people needlessly.

The 8th says they both have the equal right to life and this should be protected as far as practicable. A women are entitled to an abortion in the event her life is in danger and it doesn't have to be imminent.

Where is your empathy for the unborn developing human infant? They have no rights unless you say so? This line of thinking reeks of moral relativism.

"Nobody wants to have an abortion" That's patently untrue and naive. The pro-choice argument is it's just a bundle of cells that doesn't mean anything and should be treated in the same category as a pimple and people should have no concern with killing it.

eagle eye

I'm voting yes but I'm not in favour of no abortion law.

I don't think that just because a woman decides that they don't want to have a baby is a good enough reason for abortion.
There are plenty of ways to avoid getting pregnant in the first place and being irresponsible is not a good enough reason for abortion imo.

There are also women who go through depression while pregnant and they could make a decision that they might regret for the rest of their lives.

There needs to be laws and I'm in favour of pretty strict ones. There are very good reasons for abortion like a woman's health, or for a victim of rape and also if the baby is going to be still born or even very ill for their whole lives.

The laws we currently have need to be replaced but it's important that we do have proper sensible abortion law too.

Pete29

blanch152 wrote: »

That is scientifically incorrect.

It is not the natural processes of the embryo which enable it to become a human infant, it is the natural processes of the mother. To illustrate, consider a woman who dies ten seconds after an embryo implants itself in the uterus. It dies also.

Your analysis is also based on an unbridled and unrestricted right to life. Yet no other class of human holds such a right. If I went to China and smuggled drugs, my right to life would be forfeit, so you are arguing that a ten-second old embryo has greater rights than mine.

Your position is helpful to the debate as it demonstrates the absurdity of the pro-life position, once you strip away the religious language around it.

This is another example of the moral relativism and confusion which pervades the pro-choice argument. The right to life is a right which has developed in western society as an inalienable right which another person has no right to take away from you. In fact, it is the job of government to protect human life as far as is possible and practicable.

That actions of an authoritarian regime does not negate these right, it tramples on them.

A mother has a right to her life as does the human life inside her. A tragedy and/or crime ending her life has no affect on the rights of the unborn.

There is no religious language here, but I understand why you would call it religious to justify your own views and comfort yourself.

Zubeneschamali

Pete29 wrote: »

The Catholic church believes murder is wrong. Most Atheist's believe murder is wrong: Does this mean most Atheists are secretly harboring Catholic views? Hardly.

Only the Catholic church, out of all the Christian churches, out of all the religions in the world, before we start on the humanists and atheists, only the Catholic church believes in the dogma of double effect.

Wait, no, the Catholic church and you, coincidentally raised a Catholic.

Does this mean you are harbouring Catholic views? Yes, it does, and it is not a secret.

Apply some of your religious knowledge research skills to the doctrine of double effect. You will quickly see that it is dangerous baloney which has led to damaging operations reducing fertility for generations of Irish women in Catholic ethos hospitals.

Pete29

Pete29 wrote: »

The right to life is a right which has developed in western society as an inalienable right which another person has no right to take away from you.

This is false, there are many many instances were the right to life is not absolute.
It is also protected in law.

blanch152

Pete29 wrote: »

This is another example of the moral relativism and confusion which pervades the pro-choice argument. The right to life is a right which has developed in western society as an inalienable right which another person has no right to take away from you. In fact, it is the job of government to protect human life as far as is possible and practicable.

That actions of an authoritarian regime does not negate these right, it tramples on them.

A mother has a right to her life as does the human life inside her. A tragedy and/or crime ending her life has no affect on the rights of the unborn.

There is no religious language here, but I understand why you would call it religious to justify your own views and comfort yourself.

There is no such thing as a human right that is free from conflict or challenge from other rights. A balance between rights is always required.

I never said that there was any religious language. What I said was that the pro-life position, without the supporting religious beliefs, lacks intellectual rigour. My view on that stands.

Your atheistic pro-life stance does not stand up to any scrutiny at all, because the belief that human life commences at conception is a religious rather than a scientific one. Without that religious context (which I respect but disagree with), your stance is without any logic at all.

In order to convince me of your argument, you would have to explain why a clump of cells at implantation is more worthy of life than a clump of cells from a cut toenail. From a religious perspective, I understand the difference (and why they would find my previous sentence offensive), from an atheistic one, I don't. Stating that the potential for human life makes it human is not a sufficient test, as you are equating potential with reality in the 8th, a logical inconsistency.

Viewpoint2

The HSE have been the cause of many many deaths and the efficiency of the health service before the HSE wasnt any better. Many many people have died due to the health service and are dying due to the health service, the hepatitis scandal, the cervical screening scandal, the trolley scandal, the babies that died in maternity hospitals scandal, not to mention the carry on in some of the nursing home scandals, then the babies that died in ballinasloe etc. So now babies up to 12 months if abortion is voted in will be killed by this state! I think this country is sinking down the gutter fast. Is it not amazing that not one poitical party is advocating a No Vote and the way the HSE is at the moment its all one way the country is going no balance. I think its time to get out of this country and renounce Irish citizenship. Shame on Ireland who let down all the people who died and are dying over the HSE scandals! Shame again on Ireland if it votes yes to abortion! The way I see it is Satan is live and well in Ireland through the HSE and everyone of the Poitical Parties. Its time to renounce irish citizenship not for not minding our own business like what happened in Israel! Is it not time for the majority to say enough killing done here in Ireland and if the majority cant see that then the rest of us who have commonsense should renounce irish citizenship. I am still proud of my county but not to be Irish how could one be proud of Ireland anymore.

Viewpoint2

As for you blanch152 your attitude and stance does not surprise me one bit. Whether you are an atheist or religious you on the cervical screening scandal defended the HSE lack of accountability by attempting to use an excuse with no substance that the HSE was underfunded! No one would fall for that propagandic excuse! Now isnt it amazing that you are also proabortion aswell! You obviously with anyone dying either the poor people who were wronged at the hands of the HSE or the poor 12week old babies in abortion if its voted in!! Shame on you. You should renounce Irish citizenship as you just like to be on the other side of all debates!

SusieBlue

Viewpoint2 wrote: »

The HSE have been the cause of many many deaths and the efficiency of the health service before the HSE wasnt any better. Many many people have died due to the health service and are dying due to the health service, the hepatitis scandal, the cervical screening scandal, the trolley scandal, the babies that died in maternity hospitals scandal, not to mention the carry on in some of the nursing home scandals, then the babies that died in ballinasloe etc. So now babies up to 12 months if abortion is voted in will be killed by this state! I think this country is sinking down the gutter fast. Is it not amazing that not one poitical party is advocating a No Vote and the way the HSE is at the moment its all one way the country is going no balance. I think its time to get out of this country and renounce Irish citizenship. Shame on Ireland who let down all the people who died and are dying over the HSE scandals! Shame again on Ireland if it votes yes to abortion! The way I see it is Satan is live and well in Ireland through the HSE and everyone of the Poitical Parties. Its time to renounce irish citizenship not for not minding our own business like what happened in Israel! Is it not time for the majority to say enough killing done here in Ireland and if the majority cant see that then the rest of us who have commonsense should renounce irish citizenship. I am still proud of my county but not to be Irish how could one be proud of Ireland anymore.

Can you please link to where exactly you saw this proposal? I need to see the proof that a group or individual is advocating the murder of born infants up to a year old.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

There are some interesting debates going on here but I think a quick reminder of the forum rules is required:

1. Keep to the topic. This thread is about abortion. If you want to discuss the Cervical testing scandal or other issues please do so in another thread.

2. Please be civil. Obviously people can respond to another's post, but don't respond to the poster themselves. Examples include referring to a poster's other opinions, checking their post counts, aggressive and personal comments etc. Any more of this will be dealt with by sanctions including bans if that is what it takes to keep the debate going.

Pete29

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Only the Catholic church, out of all the Christian churches, out of all the religions in the world, before we start on the humanists and atheists, only the Catholic church believes in the dogma of double effect.

Wait, no, the Catholic church and you, coincidentally raised a Catholic.

Does this mean you are harbouring Catholic views? Yes, it does, and it is not a secret.

Apply some of your religious knowledge research skills to the doctrine of double effect. You will quickly see that it is dangerous baloney which has led to damaging operations reducing fertility for generations of Irish women in Catholic ethos hospitals.

I never mentioned the doctrine of double affect. You inserted it and claimed I did or implied I believed in it.

You're desire and attempts to straw man me are quite obvious. Also you seem to claim an amazing gift in reading minds. I'm not a Catholic and I can defend my pro-life views quite easily without reference to a God. I don't know how clear I have to be about that before you'll accept it. Or maybe you're just being dishonest and won't.

MayoAreMagic

Pete29 wrote: »

My argument is that once an embryo implants itself in the uterus, it is wrong to intentionally kill that life, because when left to its natural processes it will become a human infant. To kill it is to rob it of its natural potential and it's current right to life to fulfill that potential.

I get what you are saying. But then where does that leave something like contraception, because, like you have stated above, if everything was left to its natural processes, there is a good chance it would become a human infant also. Now you could say well a child isnt conceived every time, but then a fetus doesnt become a human infant every time either...

blanch152 wrote: »

In order to convince me of your argument, you would have to explain why a clump of cells at implantation is more worthy of life than a clump of cells from a cut toenail. From a religious perspective, I understand the difference (and why they would find my previous sentence offensive), from an atheistic one, I don't.

But in this regard, surely every living person is in fact a clump of cells also?

Pete29

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no such thing as a human right that is free from conflict or challenge from other rights. A balance between rights is always required.

Sure, I can agree with this to a degree. There are instances when rights must be balanced and instances when they do not.

I never said that there was any religious language. What I said was that the pro-life position, without the supporting religious beliefs, lacks intellectual rigour. My view on that stands.

Yeah you did: "Your position is helpful to the debate as it demonstrates the absurdity of the pro-life position, once you strip away the religious language around it.

Your atheistic pro-life stance does not stand up to any scrutiny at all, because the belief that human life commences at conception is a religious rather than a scientific one. Without that religious context (which I respect but disagree with), your stance is without any logic at all.

A few problems with this. 1. It clearly is human life. It contains a full human genome and fits the biological definition of what life is. Therefore, the definition of it as human life is sound. The mere existence of human life isn't the crux of my argument though. It's when it becomes implanted in the Uterus. The train has left the station at this point. To kill it after this point is to rob it of its natural potential.

This is a value system I'm arguing for. To say that religion is required to justify it is to say that a religion has a monopoly on values and morality, which I disagree. If only religions can have value systems then everyone in this thread is religious by that definition.

Science can only inform. It can tell you what is and how it works. It can't tell how things should be or how you should act. That's where Philosophy comes in.

In order to convince me of your argument, you would have to explain why a clump of cells at implantation is more worthy of life than a clump of cells from a cut toenail. From a religious perspective, I understand the difference (and why they would find my previous sentence offensive), from an atheistic one, I don't. Stating that the potential for human life makes it human is not a sufficient test, as you are equating potential with reality in the 8th, a logical inconsistency.

Cells at implantation is worthy of life because it is human life to begin with and it will become a human infant when left to it's natural processes, it is doing this every second of every day after implantation. Cells from a cut toe nail will not. To kill it intentionally is to rob it of it's life and natural potential. You have to convince me why it isn't worthy of its natural potential.

Pete29

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I get what you are saying. But then where does that leave something like contraception, because, like you have stated above, if everything was left to its natural processes, there is a good chance it would become a human infant also. Now you could say well a child isnt conceived every time, but then a fetus doesnt become a human infant every time either...

Not sure I understand the question. I have no problem with contraception. Contraception prevents the formation of human life with potential to become a human infant. I have no problem with the morning after pill either, as it prevents implantation of an embryo.

Pete29

bubblypop wrote: »

This is false, there are many many instances were the right to life is not absolute.
It is also protected in law.

True. Life and property can be taken away by government, but only after being found guilty of a crime through the due process of the law. A human fetus has committed no crime in being created.

MayoAreMagic

Pete29 wrote: »

Not sure I understand the question. I have no problem with contraception. Contraception prevents the formation of human life with potential to become a human infant. I have no problem with the morning after pill either, as it prevents implantation of an embryo.

Well you indicated that the definitive logic you used was that, if everything is left to it's natural processes it will become a human infant. So my point is the same, or at least a very similar argument can be made about contraception. Yet you have stated that you dont have an issue with that, or indeed the MAP either. I dont see how prevention of fertilisation, or the prevention of implantation of the embryo, is all that different to a subsequent removal shortly afterwards.

Im not trying to argue with you, Im just curious as to how you distinguish a difference there.

Pete29

Pete29 wrote: »

True. Life and property can be taken away by government, but only after being found guilty of a crime through the due process of the law. A human fetus has committed no crime in being created.

Life can also be taken in self defence, or in the protection of other lives.

Zubeneschamali

Pete29 wrote: »

I never mentioned the doctrine of double affect. You inserted it and claimed I did or implied I believed in it.

The bit I quoted from your OP is the doctrine of double effect:

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 fact that you don't recognize it while being able to repeat it says you soaked it up during your catholic upbringing. You should really go through that closet and check if there are any other Catholic leftovers.

Wrongway1985

Pete29 wrote: »

A human fetus has committed no crime in being created.

Either has the woman you expect it to remain embedded.

Any person male or female finding themselves in uncomfortable/difficult situations what's the natural instinct? Get themselves out of it...if that situation is a pregnant woman who doesn't/cant carry to term. That is absolutely dangerous without question.

SuperRabbit

Viewpoint2 wrote: »

The HSE have been the cause of many many deaths and the efficiency of the health service before the HSE wasnt any better. Many many people have died due to the health service and are dying due to the health service, the hepatitis scandal, the cervical screening scandal, the trolley scandal, the babies that died in maternity hospitals scandal, not to mention the carry on in some of the nursing home scandals, then the babies that died in ballinasloe etc. So now babies up to 12 months if abortion is voted in will be killed by this state! I think this country is sinking down the gutter fast. Is it not amazing that not one poitical party is advocating a No Vote and the way the HSE is at the moment its all one way the country is going no balance. I think its time to get out of this country and renounce Irish citizenship. Shame on Ireland who let down all the people who died and are dying over the HSE scandals! Shame again on Ireland if it votes yes to abortion! The way I see it is Satan is live and well in Ireland through the HSE and everyone of the Poitical Parties. Its time to renounce irish citizenship not for not minding our own business like what happened in Israel! Is it not time for the majority to say enough killing done here in Ireland and if the majority cant see that then the rest of us who have commonsense should renounce irish citizenship. I am still proud of my county but not to be Irish how could one be proud of Ireland anymore.

While I agree with you that being Irish is nothing to be proud of, and the HSE are hopeless, I disagree with you that people who have been raped or had miscarriages and FFA should be forced to carry the unborn to term, and I disagree with you that it is any of your business what any other adult, teenager or child with a crisis pregnancy does either.

I think that renouncing your citizenship isn't a bad idea: we have one of the best passports in the world, it allows us to work all over Europe and it means we are welcome in most countries, there are children drowning in the Adriatic because they don't have this little wine-coloured book that you are happily going to renounce because you think foetuses are more important than humans.