david75 wrote: » Adoption is a seriously flawed argument. It’s almost impossible to adopt in Ireland. Look it up. You’re also missing another point. So we force the mother to give birth and you don’t think giving the baby up won’t damage her mentally? We’re making flawed and uninformed arguments using broad strokes about women’s lives when every single scenario is totally different and ultimately none of our business. We won’t be there to help her raise a child she didn’t want. To pay for its upbringing. To be a guide and a parent to it. So imposing a severely flawed morality from a great remove on a woman’s and all women’s lives is simply wrong. This is what the majority of people are thinking and those opposed to repealing the 8th haven’t seemed to realise. This is why the 8th will be repealed. In a modern society a redundant self appointed moral minority imposing their moral view on all society, just won’t fly. This is why I suggested pro life so called should look at changing tactics in my previous post.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Do you actually know anyone who has grown up in the foster care system in this country? It’s a fate I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. I can’t comprehend why anyone would deem a life in the care system as an option or even as a positive thing. Never mind the fact that state services are withdrawn the minute the child turns 18, and then they are literally out in the world on their own. There is a huge correlation between children who grew up in the care system and homeless young adults. But that’s a topic for another thread.
uptherebels wrote: » Having an abortion at 12 weeks isn't harming somebody else either
J C wrote: » ... it certainly is ... and it is something that I personally care deeply about. Where a mother reckons that she will be unable to care for her child permanently, than adoption would generally be the best option for the long-term welfare of the child.
J C wrote: » ... it is, unless you deny that this isn't somebody else.https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks Quote:- "1. Reflexes are developing. Your baby's already busy kicking and stretching. Soon his fingers will open and close. 2. Intestines in place. Your baby's intestines, which have grown so rapidly they protrude into the umbilical cord, are moving back into the abdominal cavity. 3. Your baby looks practically human. His eyes have moved from the sides to the front of the head and his ears are where they should be."
WhiteRoses wrote: » I agree, but as has already been stated twice now, domestic adoption isn’t available here. And for what it’s worth, I agree the system needs to be improved. But it will be years, if ever, before that happens. We will realistically never see a reform sufficient enough to meet the needs to children in the system. So denying someone abortion on the basis of those fantasies is just not seeing the bigger picture, it’s extremely naive.
J C wrote: » I have noticed an interesting silence from our Atheist brethern to my posting on pro-life Atheists ... which goes to show (as I would expect) that unlimited killing of any category of Human, is equally of concern to people of all religions and none.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105910734&postcount=884
J C wrote: » Well then domestic adoption should be made available, obviously with proper safeguards in place for the mother and the child. Look, we are not going to save every child ... but we can do a lot better than we do at present ... and it is in everybodies interest, particularly for the women involved in these life-altering decisions, that we do so.
david75 wrote: » I’m predicting the 8th will pass. Where then will this ‘Christian’ morality go? It opposed marriage equality in Ireland and lost. Abortion seems to be the last grasp at maintaining control and domonion on the lives of others that don’t share their faith or view. So if the 8th is repealed what then? Personally I think next up we’re gonna have the right to die debate. And that too will probably be opposed by the same people opposing the 8th What do you think?
WhiteRoses wrote: » But even if we did, the appetite for adoption is minute compared to what it used to be. More people than ever are opting not to have kids at all. Families are getting smaller. And those that want kids but struggle, have a plethora of fertility options available to them. The world is vastly over populated as it is. So unless we start farming them out to the USA like previous generations, we’ll still end up with more children than necessary suffering by being brought up in the care system. That’s the reality of it.
J C wrote: » Many Christians voted for Gay Marriage, in good faith as an equality measure. However, the current proposal is to remove an existing equality measure. It's a life and death issue whereas Gay Marriage, important and all that it was as an equality issue, was only an administrative issue. The right to die issue is also something at the back of people's minds ... and the biggest fear there, is that the 'right to die' ... could become 'the obligation to die' ... which could easily develop, in practice, for example, where an old or terminally ill person is utilising healthcare resources that other 'more deserving' cases are awaiting.
end of the road wrote: » the world is not over-populated at all. in fact we have enough resources to support a doubling of the world's population if such resources were shared equally. if one is very desperate for an argument to allow abortion on demand they will have to come up with a better argument then claiming over-population of the world.
uptherebels wrote: » You have been shown many valid reasons over multiple threads. You just ignore them all
david75 wrote: » Quote: end of the road the world is not over-populated at all. in fact we have enough resources to support a doubling of the world's population if such resources were shared equally. if one is very desperate for an argument to allow abortion on demand they will have to come up with a better argument then claiming over-population of the world. You are living in cloud cuckoo if you think we’re going to dismantle capitalism and all its structures in order for that nirvana you’re dreaming of to happen. It never ever will. There’s hundreds of millions of people living in poverty right now with no access to food water education or anything even approaching a basic living standard. And you don’t think we have a population problem?? Laughable.
david75 wrote: » I Struggle with where we currently are in this.We’ll put down a dog cos it has cancer and it’s the humane thing to do to end its suffering. Yet people suffering with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s or cancer are forced to remain alive Til their dying breath. And aren’t given the option to choose their own exit point before they have to suffer and put their families through years of hurt watching them slowly die. We need the right to die.
david75 wrote: » I Struggle with where we currently are in this. We’ll put down a dog cos it has cancer and it’s the humane thing to do to end its suffering. Yet people suffering with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s or cancer are forced to remain alive Til their dying breath. And aren’t given the option to choose their own exit point before they have to suffer and put their families through years of hurt watching them slowly die. We need the right to die.
J C wrote: » Interesting that you give equal weight to the family's burden in all of this ... when families will have a straight conflict of interest, in that their 'inheritance pot' will be maximised by a speedy death, once somebody stops accruing wealth and starts to dissipate it through illness costs, etc.
david75 wrote: » ITS interetsing you went straight to the money. Myself and I’m sure all of us have watched loved ones dying painfully and slowly over years and years. Nobody in my family was thinking about the effing will or the costs. AT ALL. That is not a reason to prevent someone from sitting down with their family and a solicitor and arranging and organising their wishes and intentions in preparation to die. It makes 100% sense this will be the way it happens. But here we are with the so called Christian voices opposing it, and once again forcing people they don’t know to suffer needlessly.This will be the last debate we have a society and the last stand ‘christians’ will make. Counter to their Christian belief which is the ironic part. There’s nowhere to go after that.
J C wrote: » Having a monetary interest in something is indeed recognised as a conflict of interest, and a significant one at that. Anyway,what kind of society do you think we will have, that stifles debate on the many issues that will face it into the future? It sounds like you have more in common with the attitudes of 1950s Ireland than you may realise ... ... and is debate only to be held, until you and yours get your way ... and then everyone must shut up .. and toe the line, without question? ... and is it to be a 'one way street' ... with Christianity conceding every point ... and the Irish version of Secularism conceding nothing, until it gets its anti-theist way on everything? ... BTW pro-life isn't an exclusively Christian phenomenon, like you would have us believe ... what do you think of the pro-life Atheists and Secularists?http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/ Quote:- "When I partnered with fellow atheists from Secular Pro-Life to bring a display table to the 2012 American Atheists Convention, some bloggers really wanted to believe we were lying about our atheism, but it turns out we’re all True Scotsmen. The latest Gallup poll suggests that 19% of those identifying as atheist, agnostic, or of no religious affiliation also identify as pro-life." 19% could be as high as some 'liberal' Christian Churches !!!
uptherebels wrote: » If you are going to use pictures to try and aid your arguement why not use an actual image instead of a cgi? it's a child if it looks almost Human and it's intestines are almost in place? So your saying it's developing into a baby but not actually one yet!
david75 wrote: » Where to begin. ‘You and yours’ Have no business interfering with women’s wombs, THAT. Is thinking from the 1930s!! It’s 2018 and you haven’t realised that!
david75 wrote: » Pro life atheists and secularists sounds remarkably like the fake <snip> we saw last year with notable members of youth defence turning up at repeal marches pretending to be repealers with disgusting slogans and images in placards. They were caught and exposed for doing so. I’m sure there are atheists that are pro life. I doubt they’re involved and organised enough to form activist groups. Same way they faked groups during marriage equality referendum. ‘Gays against redefining marriage’ etc. They too were exposed.
smacl wrote: » You seem rather determined to establish an association with abortion and slavery there Nick, but if you think about it trying to force a woman to go through a pregnancy against her will, to suit your philosophical point of view, regardless of the untold suffering it may cause her, is actually far closer to enslavement. Perhaps 'pro-life' could be better termed 'pro-misogyny'.
david75 wrote: » We need the right to die.
J C wrote: » Death will come for us all ... no need to put out a red carpet. ... and the right to live is much more important than any right to die.
J C wrote: » I haven't the least interest in interfering with any woman's womb ... but I do wish to protect unborn life. As far as I can see, the only ones proposing to interfere with womens wombs ... are the abortionists. The 19% is from an American Gallup Poll.http://news.gallup.com/poll/154946/non-christians-postgrads-highly-pro-choice.aspx ... but when faced with more reality, I suppose denial ... and a good old-fashioned conspiracy theory (with a bit of pro-life bashing thrown in), is the way to go ?? Why do you think that Atheists cannot be pro-life? ... when we have objective evidence that one in five American Atheists are pro-life.
