thee glitz wrote: » You support giving other women a choice, but not yourself?
end of the road wrote: » my position doesn't dictate anything of the sort. i can see how one may try to think it does, given they are looking for any old thing to try and discredit the pro-life argument, something they are unable to do.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You’ve missed the point. My choice would be to go forward with a pregnancy. I can’t see myself getting an abortion at any point (although that could change). So I would be pro life in my own circumstances. However I support everyone’s right to choose, so I am pro choice.
Da Boss wrote: » News flash- it is possible to be pro life and not catholic!! I happen to be both but not every pro life poster here is Catholic, it’s actually very possible for a human using their own logic to come to conclusion their pro life
thee glitz wrote: » That's called being pro-choice.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Of course. It is also perfectly possible to be Catholic and Pro Choice.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Please don’t assume to tell me what my own opinion is. It’s the height of arrogance.
uptherebels wrote: » Your arguement has been discredited repeatedly. You just put your fingers in your ears and pretend it hasn't
end of the road wrote: » it hasn't been discredited at all, in fact it has been validated. .
end of the road wrote: » it is a life with the potential to be sentient. therefore deciding life based on sentients alone is not valid in this instance.
end of the road wrote: » however in the case of the unborn where sentients is likely
end of the road wrote: » the fact that it is a life which will become sentient[(QUOTE] Potential to be sentient just means it is not sentient now. So it is perfectly valid until such time as you establish, by anything other than outright assertion, why potential sentience should be considered important at all. Let alone relatively important to the well being, free choice, rights and ethics of an actually sentient agent. None of this have you yet done or, while ignoring many of my replies to you while "thanking" all the posts of the one user on the thread who believes in abortion WITHOUT term limits, have I even seen you yet attempt. You seem to assume that the potential for something to be sentient automatically places on us an onus to realize it. This is a wanton and massive assertion for which you have willfully contrived to offer NO sustaining argumentation. I did offer a thought experiment on this on another thread elsewhere on this forum. Imagine I were to build a fully functional General Artificial Intelligence tomorrow. It would be every bit as sentient, maybe even massively more so, than you or I when I turn it on. The ONLY thing stopping it realizing it's potential is that I have not yet flicked the "On" switch. What, in your vacuous view of the onus potential puts on us, compels me morally to flick that switch rather than..... say.... dismantle the entire machine and build toasters out of the parts? I genuinely think you do not know an answer to that because A) you have been asserting your position without considering such things and I suspect there isn't even an answer for it for you to find as NOTHING compels us morally to flick that switch. end of the road wrote: » it cannot be offered here ethically, as there is nothing ethical about abortion on demand. I do not hold to many axioms in my life, but "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the few I hold dear. And I apply it equally to people AND concepts. For this reason your sentence here parses as nonsense to me. Until such time as you can construct an argument showing abortion of a 0-16 week fetus is NOT ethical or is immoral...... which you simply have failed to do at every turn in this thread....... then I consider it "innocent until proven guilty". There is no onus on me to show it ethical, the onus would be on you to show it is not. For my position it is enough that it even be ethically neutral. end of the road wrote: » human life is human life. that is indisputable fact. What is also a fact, which is an inconvenience for you clearly, is that "human life" is not just one term meaning one thing. It means a completely different thing in taxonomy than it does in, say, philosophy. The trope of the anti choice commentator appears to be to pretend this fact is not so. And that a valid use of "human life" in one context automatically validates it's use in all other contexts. It doesn't. Bully for you. In terms of taxonomy and biology the parent, the zygote, the fetus, the baby, all of it is "human life". In terms of philosophy and "rights" and morality and ethics however we operate on more attributes that pure taxonomy. And the attributes we operate on are.... again bully for you....... precisely the ones a fetus from 0-16 weeks clearly and wholly lacks. end of the road wrote: » the problem here is that this is all irrelevant as the poster is talking about human life (mind you he could have made that clear) I know he was, do keep up. The point I am making is that the fact he is talking about human life rather than just "life" begs the question. The question being what aspect of human life is it that validates his assertions in a way no other life on this planet does. The point being that when someone actually sits down to identify the attributes that constitute that difference..... they happen to be EXACTLY The attributes the fetus being aborted simply lacks. Inconvenient for people with your agenda, but facts be facts.
end of the road wrote: » it cannot be offered here ethically, as there is nothing ethical about abortion on demand.
end of the road wrote: » human life is human life. that is indisputable fact.
end of the road wrote: » the problem here is that this is all irrelevant as the poster is talking about human life (mind you he could have made that clear)
end of the road wrote: » Joeytheparrot wrote: » But you are dictating that women must stay pregnant against their wishes or needs. the law dictates a lot of things in relation to causing harm or killing. Joeytheparrot wrote: » Why should the taxpayer for any healthcare at all? because it's necessary. killing the unborn bar extreme circumstances is unnecessary however.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » But you are dictating that women must stay pregnant against their wishes or needs.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Why should the taxpayer for any healthcare at all?
WhiteRoses wrote: » Of course you can be both. I am pro life for myself, in my own circumstances, and for my own life. I am pro choice, in that I support giving other women the option to choose in their own circumstances. Therefore I am both pro life and pro choice. It’s the most logical and sensible approach, imo.
Da Boss wrote: » ur pro life in a planned pregnancy ( which I’d imagine every person on this planet is)
Da Boss wrote: » Your in no way pro life, ur pro life in a planned pregnancy ( which I’d imagine every person on this planet is) however ur pro abortion for others and pro abortion for you when it suits u says! There’s not an ounce of pro life in you
....... wrote: This post has been deleted.
Billy86 wrote: » If Da Boss feels so strongly against abortions under any circumstance because children are just an 'inconvenience' while aborting a pregnancy is one of the world's great evils to them, why don't they just take in the children of all the unwanted pregnancies in Ireland? If they're as pious as they like to think of themselves, then it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice at all to them to take these children in on an ongoing basis.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/cabinet-faces-deep-divisions-as-abortion-tops-meeting-agenda-821986.html Mmm. The divisions may be deep but I'm dubious as to their breadth. I mean there are 'deep divisions' on abortion in SF - between Peadar Toibin and the rest of the parliamentary party.:P A lot hinges on Coveney IMO. If he comes out against the committee's recommendations, a sizeable chunk of the party could follow his lead (but nowhere near enough to vote down the legislation).
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
end of the road wrote: » by refusing to provide abortion in ireland, we make people really think about whether they actually want that abortion. if they really want it, they will go to england to have it. the reason i believe we do have some obligation to provide after care is that not providing it would go beyond simply making the carying out of an abortion outside extreme circumstances a bit difficult.
