eviltwin wrote: » But what if despite your support she chose to have an abortion. Would it change the way you see her, would it change your relationship?
WhiteRoses wrote: » And what about the poor child surrendered to the foster care system? I noticed you never bothered mentioning the baby, just focused on yourself and your daughter. Do you think foster care is a sufficient, appropriate place for a child to feel loved and get a stable, happy upbringing? Being moved from foster home to foster home with a social worker who works 9-5 as their only guardian? Is that really in the best interests of the child? This will be a living, breathing human we’re talking about. A human you’re advocating dumping into state services so your daughter can finish her education. Surely she should be giving up her education to embrace motherhood? A life in state care is hardly in the best interests of the unborn.
J C wrote: » i would hope that this would never arise ... but if it did I would support and love her and help her not to kill my grandchild. If she was young, with her third level education ahead of her, I would, encourage her to avail of fosterage, so that her eduction could proceed. All this assumes that her boyfriend was no support to her.
J C wrote: » We live in a fallen world where everything isn't 'great' ... but we should still strive for the best outcomes for everybody.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You genuinely don’t have a clue, do you? Can I come live in this fantasy land you seem to reside in where everything is great?
koumi wrote: » It was ill humans I was thinking about.
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: » 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
J C wrote: » We shouldn't let ill Humans suffer either ... but death isn't the only way to end their suffering ... modern palliative care can practically eliminate suffering and should be used to allow people to die with dignity.
koumi wrote: » 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.
PopePalpatine wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
david75 wrote: » We need the right to die.
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: » 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.
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!
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 !!!
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: » 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: » 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.
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.
uptherebels wrote: » You have been shown many valid reasons over multiple threads. You just ignore them all
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.
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.
