NuMarvel wrote: » The reason no one has mentioned it is because a person's desire to be a parent doesn't override someone else's right to bodily autonomy. A person can't be forced to give blood or donate an organ to save their spouses life, so why in the world would they be made continue a pregnancy they don't want so their spouse could be a parent? It's one thing when people talk about the unborn's rights. I don't always agree with them, but I can understand their reasoning. I can see no reasoning behind the idea that a woman should continue a pregnancy because of the wants or right of someone external to that pregnancy, even if that person played a part in the creation of that pregnancy.
Gerry T wrote: » One aspect not mentioned, is the rights of the baby/foetus father. Should it not be the case if a woman wants an abortion that where practical the fathers permission should be sought. In fairness the baby needs sperm and egg....the mother doesn't own the baby/foetus. I agree there are exceptions such as the mothers health, but in other cases if the father wants the child then why wouldn't the mother go full term and hand the baby over.
DickSwiveller wrote: » Is this poster allowed to continually attack and abuse Catholics with absolutely no punishment?
BloodBath wrote: » I'm sorry but it's true. I have no problems with anybody being spiritual or what their religious beliefs are but anybody who supports this organisation is a traitor to this country and to the human species. I am born and raised catholic. I still have spiritual beliefs and I believe in a god. What I don't do is support an abomination of an organisation like the RCC. Quite frankly at this stage anybody that does should be classed as a terrorist. Maybe my views are extreme but they are a hell of a lot more valid than anyone who buries their head in the sand and supports the the RCC.
Arian Strong Lyrics wrote: » Round earth and Christianity collided some centuries ago but they eventually evolved.
Nick Park wrote: » Much as some would like to make the Referendum all about the RCC, it isn't. A number of the Christian posters in this thread (including JC and myself) are not members of the RCC. So why should I and others like me feel hypocritical because we see unborn children as deserving of human rights?
BloodBath wrote: » Fair enough. I understand attacking this is not going to gain me any fans on this forum. Quite frankly I don't give a damn though. More people need to start speaking up against this evil. As for the abortion issue. I'm still on the fence over it. Is abortion where the line in the sand is for the RCC and their followers these days? It's no longer the sperm and egg they protect? So contraception is ok now, just no abortions? I can understand women wanting the freedom to control their lives and bodies. We live in a democracy and if this is something they want then they should be allowed to vote on the issue and they will. We don't get to judge their decisions. The RCC and it's followers have denied the democratic and human rights of people in this country for long enough. If you feel it's morally or religiously wrong then fine. That's your right. Let the people who have to make that horrible choice deal with the consequences themselves. Also do you not feel hypocritical attacking this issue when the RCC were practically performing abortions themselves well after 9 months. How many mothers were stripped of their babies to be sold or let die or killed while the women were completely outcast from society and used as slave labour? How many in Tuam alone which is only 1 of many mass burial sites in Ireland from recent history. Or do you not talk about those issues?
gallifreya wrote: » Why is the compassion only going one way -where is the compassion for women?
There seems to be a blindness to any suffering or injury that could befall women due to pregnancy as long as the foetus is protected.
Should a 12 week limit pass, the unborn will still be protected - just at a later stage of development.
BloodBath wrote: » The RCC is a bad joke. An evil murderous abusive organisation set up to take money and power from old superstitious idiots. I'm not attacking your beliefs but anybody that holds any respect for the RCC is a complete and utter moron who needs to start reading some history books. I find it amusing that you respect the RCC yet you think abortion is an abomination. What about the thousands of children in Ireland alone that they abused and let die or murdered or sold over the years? The people of Ireland, especially the women of Ireland, have had to put up with enough <snip> from the RCC. It's about time the real snakes of Ireland were driven out.
J C wrote: » Are you not the hypocrite for accusing the RCC of not treating your baby as a Christian child, when you would have accused them of prosletising, or a lot worse, if they had? If churches treat your right to believe what you wish with respect, do you not welcome that ? ... or is the RCC wrong in your eyes, no matter what they do?
antiskeptic wrote: » Personhood isn't something which lies within the remit of a medical professional to decide upon. It's a philosophical question rather than a medical one. Your philosophy might decide that it's a medical issue however. If viability is the line in the sand, but brain defines person, then you are okay with aborting persons (because they have a brain), pre-viability?
Okay (given viability your line in the sand) What is your basis for viability being the line in the sand? If it's not because it's considered a (viable) person then what is it? If it is because it is a person, then by setting a 20% rate you are deciding that 19.99 viable persons per hundred can be aborted.
Delirium wrote: » I haven't said viability defines personhood. Personally, you need a brain to be a person so that would put it prior to viability. I'm not a medical professional/scientist so I can't speak to when personhood precisely begins but I don't accept that the mere creation of an embryo is a person.
The earliest surviving foetus was at 21 weeks which is beyond the 20 weeks I'd have as a limit. A limit (for on request) that would roll back as science improves rates of survival earlier in the pregnancy.
To your 17 weeks example, the survival would have to be within the realms of the rate currently for 23 weeks, i.e. 20% minimum, for me to modify my personal limit back to 17 weeks.
antiskeptic wrote: » Could you expand on your thinking here? Those in favour of abortion appear to centre their thinking on the non-personhood of the foetus, it being problematic to kill persons. What is it about viability outside the womb which transforms a non-person into a person? Viability appears to deal with mechanical issues of bodily function, rather than that which deals with personhood (a far slippier subject)
On % rates for viability at a particular point in time. You appear to be supposing foetuses as persons once viable, (although still in the womb). Wouldn't it be proper that abortions be halted (leaving aside the more limited late term justifications) at any % chance of viability? I mean, if we are killing persons at 17 weeks (assuming for the sake of argument that even 0.01% were found viable at that stage) then surely that's problematic?
There is more to be said if viability becomes the measure (for example, the advance of medical science such that viability is pushed back earlier and earlier) but your thoughts for now welcome.
J C wrote: » I didn't realise that this was the case. If I were to foster a child, I think the fact that s/he had Downs Syndrome wouldn't be of any significance ... they are such loving happy children !!!
... do you think it is acceptable to kill them all? ... as is currently happening in Iceland ... and rapidly getting there in England (with a 90% 'termination' rate for Downes Syndrome unborn children), the country whose abortion regime is being held up to us as a model to follow.
I agree ... and society needs to do much more to help such families and children ... but killing them?? ... I genuinely think (hope) that we are much more civilised than that. These children aren't 'life unworthy of life'. They may not be perfect Humans ... but then please show me somebody who is perfect.
That isn't our decision to make ... no more than born children, who can also cause us any number of problems, can/should be killed either. The state needs to 'step up to the plate' to help families with vulnerable/ill members. If we're unlucky, any one of us. may become a burden on our families and society, in our old age ... or even earlier, in an accident, for example. Saving money by killing off people who cause us various levels of inconvenience is not something that any right-thinking person should support.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » It's a truth you are unwilling to face. You have no right to designate the suffering of my family as 'lies' and it paints you and your so-called 'christianity' in a pretty poor light.
smacl wrote: » While I honestly don't know and can only speak for myself, I would imagine at a late stage in the pregnancy we'd be talking about a termination rather than an abortion and, as you candidly put it earlier, a baby rather than a foetus. You'd probably need to be a bit more specific about what exactly you mean by the term 'viable'.
end of the road wrote: » no, lets call it what it actually is . 200,000 unborn Babies being killed. there is no getting around that fact, no matter how much one tries to dodge reality. killing the unborn is not taking responsibility for anything, it's killing the unborn. unless it is within an extreme circumstance then there is no justification for killing the unborn and such should not be and will not be respected, as is just and correct. the reality is those in favour of abortion on demand know they have no argument for their stance, so have to dehumanise the unborn and remind us how they only care about the living and breathing, dispite the fact the unborn is a form of life which has protections within the constitution. as you well know, this is an invalid argument put forward to dodge his question. sure, and the state needs to step up to the plate and help families in such a situation. allowing the killing of the unborn is not a valid option.
NuMarvel wrote: » The Journal did a fact check on this a while back and found that most of the countries they looked at only allow abortion after the point of viability in specified circumstances. They also found that abortions after this point represent a very small percentage of overall abortions, typically 1 to 2%, even in countries where there's no restrictions on abortion. EG, Canada's rate in 2014 was 2.4% after 21 weeks. Most abortions after the point of viability are for wanted pregnancies where something has gone wrong. I think our laws should recognise that and provide for that.
Delirium wrote: » Personally, I want abortion to be available as early into the pregnancy as possible. The 8th amendment means that women who have abortions abroad are having them later than if they could have it here. I wouldn't be on for abortion on request being available beyond 20 weeks max. Viability hits 20 to 35% at week 23. So as you can see I'm not in favour of aborting a viable foetus/child. Something like 80-90% of abortions happen before 13 weeks. Why focus on the minority of abortions to formulate laws? I haven't seen many (if any) pro-choice people arguing for late-term abortions regarding abortion on request tbh.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » You don't speak for me, or my wife. We have two lovely children, but we had (that we know of, possibly more) five pregnancies. The three we lost between the two live births at an early stage were not regarded as human by the 'catholic' hospital we went to. We were not offered a funeral or a death certificate. We were not offered counselling. We were told to shrug our shoulders and try again - and we did - but we were under no illusion whatsoever that this 'catholic' hospital regarded a miscarried pregnancy at 8 weeks as anything other than a non-entity that goes down the drain with as little drama as possible. The utter hypocrisy stinks, and stinks badly. Yes we didn't regard them as human beings either, but they were potential human beings. That's not to say that the loss of that potential was not regretted - but potential thing isn't the same as actual thing and the 'catholic hospital' didn't for one second regard the miscarriages as human beings. The irony is that if any of those three potential human beings had made it, the son I have now wouldn't have been conceived never mind born. I wouldn't swap him for the unknown potential of any of those three embryos we, not by choice, lost.
J C wrote: » That will actually be one of the arguments that will be used to ensure that we do move rapidly if the 8th is repealed.
antiskeptic wrote: » What is pro-choice thinking on this (aborting at a stage where life is viable outside the womb)? What has occurred such that the foetus inside the womb isn't a person and the same now-child outside the womb is a person?
J C wrote: » ... and Atheists are increasingly writing the laws I have to live by now ...
