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.
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.
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.
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
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!
koumi wrote: » It was ill humans I was thinking about.
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.
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?
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: » 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.
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?
koumi wrote: » maybe, just maybe, we could help alleviate some of the suffering. You use the words "kill" with ambition but what if you could see it as an act of compassion, sparing a child from a life of suffering.
david75 wrote: » ... when we have objective evidence that one in five American Atheists are pro-life. JC. You really want to use America as a guiding metric? The same country that elected Trump and has no access to healthcare unless you’re loaded and no access to third level education action unless you’re realky loaded And the same country that you can buy an assault rifle and go on a killing spree, but hey life is precious, save the unwanted foetus’s!! Cop on If ‘but in America...’ is your best argument I suggest you find a new better argument.
david75 wrote: » Thanks for pointing that out. I really thought I was imagining him saying that. Modern palliative care..right. So that cures cancer and Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s and MS Can you ask him where the money for that palliative care comes from? Same place probably. La la land.
end of the road wrote: » a 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.
uptherebels wrote: » Well I suppose when you are here to ensure that boards doesn't become a pro choice echo chamber, no point against your agenda is valid. What about the points raised even in this thread about your persistent use of unsupported claims that you masquerade as fact in an attempt to legitimise your agenda and influence others? Are these also not valid? Because they are ignored aswell.
J C wrote: » ... killing somebody isn't our decision to make ... it certainly is a totally disproportionate act even if ... and its a big if, the child may not become all s/he might want to be in later life. Most people don't achieve everything they set out to achieve ... but that is no reason to pre-empt such subjective 'failure' by killing them. indeed one persons 'failure' is another persons 'success' in life. Equally, when it comes to something like Downs Syndrome these children don't suffer significantly ... yet in England they can be aborted right up to birth i.e. long after they are viable outside the uterus.
koumi wrote: » I'm trying to share some real life examples so you might get a better idea of how that might be an act of compassion. We are both in agreement that we live in a "fallen" society so take a woman, who had previously had children but as a result of an abusive situation (raped) discovered she was pregnant again. She went on to have this child but because of the previous trauma, she was in no fit state to care for that child. However, without any other options she does her best despite being heavily medicated and with little in the way of state support other than the welfare keeping her and her children afloat. Child protection services stood back on the sidelines and failed to instigate any kind of program which might secure their safety. One day the woman, most probably under the influence of a toxic concoction of substances, runs to catch a bus to get her child to creche, so she can go and work on a government funded jobpath scheme in order to assure her welfare officer that she is trying to get a job, and in her delayed panic stumbles out in front of a truck. The child and her pram are instantly crushed under the wheels while mother escapes unscathed. People already considered her as a "fallen" woman, but now she was nothing less than a murderer in their eyes. Which would have been better? Would that child not have suffered less if her mother had the option to compassionately spare her that short existence? This is a difficult subject to discuss and while I'm not personally related have been substantially impacted by the events. (suffer from ptsd) Given what I know myself as a parent who struggled to raise a daughter by myself, while I value her life above my own, if I thought I could have saved that child from what she suffered I would not stand in the way of the 8th being repealed. Our society is not equipped to extend the most basic levels of care to ensure the well being and safety of our most vulnerable and it is unfortunate that legislating for abortion as an act of compassion is a reflection of who we are.
end of the road wrote: » we are very much equipped to insure our services work, government choose not to do it. unrestricted and on demand abortion is not an act of compassion but an act of barbarity, and we would not be legislating for it as an act of compassion.
end of the road wrote: » those points are inaccurate and are just made up in an attempt to de-rail the thread. i haven't used any unsupported claims and i don't masquerade anything as fact. i do give some well known and widely availible facts yes, however where something isn't fact i make it clear that it's my viewpoint.
end of the road wrote: » christians and all other religions are united with those of us who are non-religious in knowing that the killing of the unborn unrestricted and on demand is one of the most barbaric acts known to man.
koumi wrote: » The point being, they do nothing and people suffer. That is what is barbaric
koumi wrote: » you need to stop forcing women to continue to be subjected to the failure of society.
koumi wrote: » is there not an ounce of compassion in your soul?
koumi wrote: » Are you just afraid to touch the truth? Why would anyone in their right mind want to willingly bring a life into what is essentially hell on earth, and then call them murderers for wanting to spare themselves and their children that pain.
koumi wrote: » Do you have children or are you just operating out of a spirit of religiosity? What did Jesus say, where's the bread?
end of the road wrote: » killing of the unborn simply killing them just killing off whoever. i'm not religious myself.
end of the road wrote: » so instead of actually trying to end that suffering, we instead just kill whoever. especially the unborn. i'm not forcing women to do anything. it's government who are forcing women to be subjected to the failures of society by refusing to deal with those failures. it's those in favour of abortion on demand who seem to want the unborn to be forced to pay with their lives because society has very easily solvible problems that government refuse to deal with. how the hell is that right considering we rightly vilify those who harm or kill children. i know that both can be protected equally and where there is a threat to life or of permanent injury or disability, abortion could be offered and that would be justified, unlike the unrestricted and on demand abortion proposed.
