Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

1…2829313334…174

Comments

  • #902
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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    This is why the 8th will be repealed.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.

    there is nothing redundant about those opposed to the unrestricted and on demand killing of the unborn. the arguments against the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances will fly unless one is in favour of people being able to kill the unborn without restriction. a truely modern society does not allow the unrestricted and on demand killing of the unborn, a backward society does.
    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    Never mind the fact that state services are withdrawn the minute the child turns 18, and then they are literally out in the world on their own.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.

    and again, nobody is denying this, and those issues need to be dealt with. there will be no disagreement on that fact. however the solution to that is not the unrestricted and on demand killing of the unborn.
    uptherebels wrote: »
    Having an abortion at 12 weeks isn't harming somebody else either

    it's more then harming somebody else. it's killing the unborn. the most vunerable of society.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #903
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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    .
    ... 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.


  • #904
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    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.

    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.


  • #905
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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


  • #906
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #907
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    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."

    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!


  • #908
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    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.


  • #909
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    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
    Not to many people saying that anti choice is solely religious people just that a large part are but not all.
    As I said to eotr before which he ignored, when you say all religions do you include the ones that have no official stance on abortion and the ones that are fine with abortion up to a certain number of weeks?


  • #910
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    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.

    I'd agree with that but adoption is still just one option, it should be there along with abortion, not in place of. It's not an option for a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.


  • #911
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    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.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #912
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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?
    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.


  • #913
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,140 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    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?

    Yeah, I think a debate on euthanasia would be more palatable than any other topic stemming from the RCC's fading stranglehold on Ireland, e.g. school patronage.


  • #914
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭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.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #915
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    I can see how abortion could save society a small fortune ... but the West isn't even replacing itself ... and this is already showing with older people living and dying alone ... as well as the 'pensions bomb' that we are all told about.
    We're now doing the reverse of 'exporting' adopted children ... we're 'importing' them.
    Can we never strike a happy medium in Ireland?


  • #916
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    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.


    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.


  • #917
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    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.
    You have been shown many valid reasons over multiple threads. You just ignore them all


  • #918
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    a
    uptherebels wrote: »
    You have been shown many valid reasons over multiple threads. You just ignore them all


    i haven't ignored them, they just aren't valid. they were just effectively a roundabout way of saying one wants to be able to have an unrestricted and on demand abortion, something there is no valid justification for.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #919
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    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.


  • #920
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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.

    it's not and could not be a problem requiring the killing of the unborn to be the solution to it.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #921
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    We're not dogs ... and we (should) hold ourselves to higher standards when it comes to Human Life.
    I agree there is no point and less reason for keeping somebody alive using extraordinary means ... that removes people's dignity ... but if we sanction the deliberate killing of adult Humans then we are on a very dangerous legal road ... because, unlike unborn children, outside of Ireland, these people are persons in law and in practice.
    Anyway, that is a debate for another day.

    All I'll say is that it is not without irony that the generation who introduced abortion in the western world will probably be the first generation to experience euthanasia in the Western World.


  • Advertisement
  • #922
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    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.

    There has been an interesting change in the Hippocratic Oath (which dates to pagan Greece)
    The oath to 'first do no harm' ... 'primum non nocere' takes it root from the Hippocratic School of Medecine ... but the original phrase was:

    "I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art."

    This was pagan Secular Greece ... so Secularists can set very high standards of probity.

    This is what has replaced it:-
    "I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."

    You will notice that the original was absolute ... but the current is relative ... and it allows both abortion and Euthanasia effectively without limit ... so faced with this reality, society must place limits on what doctors can do. The statement that taking a life is an 'awesome responsibility (that) must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty' are just high-sounding words of no legal significance. ... and 'playing at God' is precisely what the intentional killing of unborn children ... and adults is.


  • #923
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    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.

    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.


  • #924
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    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% of Atheists pro-life, could be as high as some so-called 'liberal' Christian Churches !!!
    ... strange days indeed !!!


  • #925
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    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 !!!


    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!

    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.


  • #926
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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!
    The linked article was from the website 'Baby Center Expert Advice' ... and it is a website offering advice and education for pregnant mothers ... so it is independent of either side in the abortion debate. The images and the information are objectively correct.

    You can deny the Humanity of these children ... but your denial doesn't alter the objective fact of their Humanity.

    https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks

    Why are you denying reality ... surely, if you are a person of your beliefs, you believe that these unborn children can be killed despite their Humanity?


  • #927
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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!
    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.

    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.
    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.


  • #928
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    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'.

    There is an association between abortion and slavery. Both are examples of how allowing the 'choice' to hurt others is not a good thing. Also, both are examples of how some wish to extend human rights to some people, but not to all.

    If you seriously want to argue that pregnancy is slavery unless you're permitted to kill unborn children, then I don't think we have much basis to continue a rational discussion.


  • #929
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    david75 wrote: »
    We need the right to die.
    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.


  • #930
    koumi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭koumi


    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.
    suffering isn't an obligation though and we should all have the right to end unnecessary pain or suffering. We wouldn't let our animals suffer if we knew we could end their pain.


  • Advertisement
  • #931
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    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.


    Here’s the mad thing. I was always pro life. And devoutly Catholic. Then found myself at a young age in a situation real world with a then girlfriend who found out she was pregnant and the impossible situation we found ourselves in and the absolute abuse we both faced and appalling lack of help or assistance we found ourselves in. Shamed for getting ourselves ‘in trouble’ at such an early age and completely stonewalled when it came to trying to access information about options of any kind.
    We sorted it out and she made her choice and I supported it. As it was her body and her life and no way did I have the right to say otherwise.
    Don’t come at me with BS statistics and nonsense. You haven’t lived it. You will never know about it. I hope anyways. It could change your entire perspective.

    Would you force your young daughter to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? And then hand it over for adoption?
    I doubt it somehow


Advertisement