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…3233353738…174

Comments

  • #1022
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1023
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1024
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1025
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1026
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    The decision to abort might not be easy, but the reasons why there is an unwanted pregnancy can be the result of frivolity.

    In the case of drunk driving resulting in an accident, the court looks at the frivolity which brought about the accident, not the remorse and anguish felt by the person facing the consequences of their frivolity.

    Frivolity lies in the eye of the beholder. If you consider the foetus a card carrying member of the human race, then the bar for frivolity is set quite low, Things that you see as warranting an abortion would be seen as frivolous by another.


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,903 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You're effectively citing an ideology (or majority view from a multitude of differing ideologies) which happens to conform to your own as some kind of absolute authority?

    Isn't this simply authority of the majority? Pick another majority (e.g. world Catholicism) and you get a different result.

    Agreed, the authority that I'm preferring is the UN, which is the accepted authority with regards to human rights for most civilised countries. Ideologically, it is secular based around democratic decision making and consensus. The authority you're comparing it to is the Catholic church, which is autocratic and regressive. The result you achieve by choosing world Catholicism over the UN is a theocracy with a long history of abuse of anyone that disagrees with it. It is evident that we no longer want or accept this ideology in this country, even though we have a substantial Catholic majority, as can be seen in the marriage equality referendum which won by a landslide against the explicit stated position of the Catholic church.
    The pregnant woman a person is a matter of fact. And that fact stands there on it's own unless you begin to add therefore's onto it. Once you add a therefore (regarding how to approach the pregnancy), you immediately add a personal philosophy.

    Your therefore can't avoid dealing with the nature of whats in her womb.

    That the pregnant woman is person is a matter of fact. The notion that foetus is a person is a matter of questionable belief / conjecture. The two cannot be reasonably equated in terms of human rights on that basis. There is no therefore.
    The nimbyism merely holds that you cannot prevent someone from travelling. The question is what are we as a society to uphold in our society. We can't, and oughtn't dictate what another society do.

    The nimbyism as I see it is a pretence that by keeping abortion illegal in this country, pro-lifers have somehow defended their integrity and self-worth by keeping Ireland a 'good' country that is abortion free. The truth of the matter is that abortion continues as it ever has, at serious unnecessary risk and cost to the women involved. Worth remembering no one actually wants abortion, least of all a pregnant woman. What we're dealing with here is a least worst option, and we should collectively be looking to reduce overall number of abortions through better sex education and affordable access to contraception
    and emergency contraception as required.


  • #1028
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1029
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    gallifreya wrote: »
    There can be equally as many reasons to have an abortion as there are to continue with pregnancies. These reasons are legion and cannot possibly be legislated for separately. No individual should want nor get to sit in judgment or in righteous superiority and decide which of those reasons are ‘legitimate’ and which are not - or indeed which is a genuine need for an abortion and which is a want. We should not get to define the exceptions. We can never stipulate exactly how or when a pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother, when an abortion has a ‘good or bad enough reason’ to define it or when circumstances are dire enough or a relationship is abusive enough to justify an abortion. That is for women to decide privately with regard to their own circumstances and I know none who ever made this decision with reckless abandon.

    This fear of what women’s reasons for abortions ‘may’ be and ‘why’ they might make such a decision is unsupportable, controlling and oppressive. The fact that it’s masked as a concern for the unborn does not make it less oppressive or judgmental. Why do some consider abortion more acceptable when women have suffered btw?

    If someone wants to contend that that foetus has rights, and call that foetus a person and a baby from conception, that’s up to them but even the state and constitution disagree with that position. You can believe that a 12 week old foetus is a separate person and this is can be debated to eternity. However, there’s no doubt that a woman is a person. And so the question is - at what point is a woman not a person? At what point does a woman lose the right to control her reproduction, make health decisions and to have bodily integrity? Does pregnancy from conception supersede the rights of a woman to make decisions about her future, her health, her body, her medical care? Currently, the constitution says it does which suppresses women’s rights inequitably in favour of the unborn - so an actual balance of rights is proposed for various reasons up to a 12 week limitation. This takes some (not all) of the current protections from the unborn and gives them to the woman – up to a limit.

    Abortion ‘on demand’, if you want to put it like that, is already here. It’s here in the form of thousands of women able to afford it travelling to the UK. It’s really here in the form of a pill that is being taken and will be taken by women without medical supervision risking their life, health and imprisonment. That is one of the reasons why the recommendation is for safety, accessibility and decriminalisation for any reason within a 12 week limit. Another is of course, because of the due process required for accused rapists. Is it possible for a Christian and society to support both women and the unborn by working towards making abortions unnecessary rather than illegal but until then, leaving the hard choices up to the women directly affected instead of trying to erase them from the equation entirely?


    there are only a few legitimate reasons for abortion. those are reasons where the mother's life is under threat or she is under threat of permenant injury or disability, + FFA or other reasons where the baby can't be carried or won't live to term. outside those abortion is a want. there is nothing oppressive or controlling about only having necessary abortions facilitated by the state and protecting the unborn as much as is practical. not allowing abortion on demand isn't going against a woman controling anything, she just can't kill the unborn. women have equal rights to the unborn except in extreme circumstances where the mother's rights come first. what is proposed is a removal of the balance and eradication of rights for the unborn before 12 weeks, which will eventually become 16 or more as abortion lobbiests won't allow it to remain at 12 weeks.
    abortion on demand being availible in england means those who really want it can have it whether the people agree or not, and negates ireland neeeding to have it. the reasons for wanting abortion on demand are not the claimed ones in my view. a christian cannot support abortion on demand. there is no need for abortion on demand to be availible in ireland, and it is only being looked for as a non-solvible solution to problems that can be solved via other means, which wouldn't be by abortion on demand, which would likely increase the problems.
    gallifreya wrote: »
    Abortion is only cruel if prevented in extreme circumstances - according to you?

    Fund it themselves? Hard pressed tax payer? Nobody has any control over how the government spends tax funds. I may not ever use the bridges, parks, transport systems, clinics, housing endeavours etc built and supported by taxes but I appreciate that the funds are used to benefit society in general - and women's health is part of that. So would you vote to repeal the 8th amendment as currently proposed if women had to fund abortions or pregnancy terminations for health reasons themselves?

    i would never vote to repeal the 8th as currently proposed. the only way i would repeal it is if there is no abortion on demand.
    smacl wrote: »
    Your logic is badly wrong there. As things stand in this country, we're already in the extreme polar position, to the extent that the UN has commented on us in relation to neglecting women's rights. By voting to keep the eighth you're voting to maintain an extreme and inhumane status quo. Pretending otherwise on the pretext of having an option that better suits your personal preference at some stage in the future is burying your head in the sand.

    There seems to be agreement on both sides here that whether or not a foetus at 12 weeks is or is not a person is a matter of personally held belief, whereas that a pregnant woman is a person is a matter of fact. On that basis, I find it morally reprehensible that those from the pro-life side would seek to dictate to a woman how she should behave based on their questionable beliefs. Pithy analogies to slavery, finger-wagging NIMBYisms and shameful shock tactics just add to this.

    we have laws preventing women from killing their born children. there is no difference between that and preventing abortion, apart from 1 child is born and the other not. by voting to keep the 8th we are voting to keep the protections for the unborn, who have a right to be protected. if there had been an option to legislate for full protection for the unborn and repeal the 8th, that would have been the best option. however that isn't availible, so voting no is the only option pro-life have.

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



  • #1030
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    it's a developing baby. so his point is still accurate.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    because the research is unreliable given that it would not be able to prove that the current system isn't stopping or reducing abortions in ireland.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    that is what is being claimed but those costs will have to rise hugely to take account of the likely spike in abortions, especially the likely good number of multiple abortions. paying for children is better value for money for the tax payer as we get people who contribute to society at the end of it.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    not really. they may be using state payments, but those state payments (dole at least) aren't given to pay for abortions but given to help the person pay for basic needs.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    there is no actual right for women to travel for abortions, there is a right to travel only.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    my posts are factual and accurate.

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



  • #1031
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1033
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Agreed, the authority that I'm preferring is the UN, which is the accepted authority with regards to human rights for most civilised countries.

    That's too broad a brush stroke. You accept what you accept and don't what you don't. They are not an authority on anything, other than insofar as you're prepared to accept them thus.

    You're also broad brush stroking "civilised countries" to mean every member of that civilised country.

    Ideologically, it is secular based around democratic decision making and consensus. The authority you're comparing it to is the Catholic church, which is autocratic and regressive. The result you achieve by choosing world Catholicism over the UN is a theocracy with a long history of abuse of anyone that disagrees with it. It is evident that we no longer want or accept this ideology in this country, even though we have a substantial Catholic majority, as can be seen in the marriage equality referendum which won by a landslide against the explicit stated position of the Catholic church.

    I was just making the point that your authority by majority is just that. That you have reasons to pick one majority over another is your affair. But it's not an overwhelming argument. I'm no fan of the Catholic church - I was just making the argument from majority point.


    That the pregnant woman is person is a matter of fact. The notion that foetus is a person is a matter of questionable belief / conjecture.

    As is the notion that the person isn't a person: questionable belief/conjecture applies equally there.

    Which means you're left with the fact a pregnant woman is a person. No one is arguing about that. You can't do much with the statement "it's a fact a pregnant woman is a person". You have to add something to the statement it to make some other point. See below.
    The two cannot be reasonably equated in terms of human rights on that basis. There is no therefore.

    You've just added something to the fact the pregnant women is a person. You've added the foetus into the equation. And seem to be making factual statements about the foetus.


    The nimbyism as I see it is a pretence that by keeping abortion illegal in this country, pro-lifers have somehow defended their integrity and self-worth by keeping Ireland a 'good' country that is abortion free.

    They are protecting the life of what they see as a person to the extent they can. It is not nimbyism to face the facts that you can't legislate for what a person choose to do outside this country.

    You can hold the view you do, but when faced with an argument, you have to address it on it's merits, not simply assert something that circumvents it.

    So, deal with the argument.

    The truth of the matter is that abortion continues as it ever has, at serious unnecessary risk and cost to the women involved.

    If someone wants to travel for an abortion that is their concern. In the event that society deems the unborn protected from abortion.

    Worth remembering no one actually wants abortion, least of all a pregnant woman.


    Of course the person wants it. In the sense they want it more than the alternative.

    What we're dealing with here is a least worst option, and we should collectively be looking to reduce overall number of abortions through better sex education and affordable access to contraception
    and emergency contraception as required.

    We're all dealing from our philosophical deck at the end of the day. We ought recognise that, see that our philopsophies will never meet, and do what we think best to have our particular philosophy hold sway in the society we live in.

    That's democracy.


  • #1034
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    the unborn are being killed.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    it's not okay, but it is availible across the water if one really wants it whether i agree with it or not. what happens in another society isn't something i can stop.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    yes so it's not needed in ireland.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    i have informed myself, that is why i'm against abortion on demand.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    no it's true.

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



  • #1035
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1036
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Gerry T wrote: »
    Your twisting what is being said. The discussion is should abortions be allowed without a reason. Not all women will make considered decisions hence there needs to be some legislation. I don't agree with zero abortion as the line, I'm not at the polar ends but somewhere in the middle. But given the choice of having either polar position, I will vote not to repeal until a better choice is presented.
    This is not an attack at women, if a woman wants to do anything with her body I would say fire away. But I'm discussing the childs body.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    It's not about what I think about women. My question is, if you think women having an abortion because it affects the social life/finances etc...is not a valid reason for an abortion then you should vote against repeal.
    Unless of course you can satisfy yourself that 100% of women wouldn't do that.
    A vote to repeal allows women to abort for any and all reasons.
    What should be done is look to change legislation so that as a society we agree under what circumstances an abortion can be allowed. Your comment suggests that women wouldn't have an abortion for a frivolous reason, so this approach should sit well with you

    So when it comes down to it, its clear you don't trust women.

    I'm ok with a woman having an abortion for any reason necessary. What may be frivolous to one woman, may be life altering to another.
    Therefore I trust each woman to make the best decision for herself.
    After all, who am I to judge another person for what they can or cannot cope with?

    And for what its worth, to play devils advocate, if a woman was seeking an abortion for a frivolous reason, do you really think that type of person should be trusted with the responsibility of raising another human?
    Do you really think someone who would want to abort for a nonsensical reason without giving it any kind of consideration is the kind of person who would make a good, loving, stable, parent?
    Or are you just keen on punishing the woman to a fate she doesn't want?
    I have a feeling its the latter.


  • #1037
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    they are developing babies.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    it doesn't as i have never made such a statement. i'm against abortion on demand full stop, but we cannot stop people from traveling or availing of services in other EU nations.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    they are wrong. abortion on demand isn't needed in ireland, abortion in extreme circumstances is needed in ireland.

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



  • #1038
    raspberrypi67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 833 ✭✭✭raspberrypi67


    Answer is YEs by law, though I'm an atheist , thank God...


  • #1039
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »

    they are wrong. abortion on demand isn't needed in ireland, abortion in extreme circumstances is needed in ireland.

    This isn't the first time you've stated this, and I've already asked you twice now to provide a link of proof to support this claim.
    I'd love to see some evidence to support your theory that it isn't needed.


  • #1040
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1041
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    So when it comes down to it, its clear you don't trust women.

    being against abortion on demand doesn't equal not trusting women. suggesting otherwise is nonsense with no basis in fact and reality.
    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    I'm ok with a woman having an abortion for any reason necessary. What may be frivolous to one woman, may be life altering to another.
    Therefore I trust each woman to make the best decision for herself.
    After all, who am I to judge another person for what they can or cannot cope with?

    we have a right to judge someone when their actions harm others.
    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    And for what its worth, to play devils advocate, if a woman was seeking an abortion for a frivolous reason, do you really think that type of person should be trusted with the responsibility of raising another human?
    Do you really think someone who would want to abort for a nonsensical reason without giving it any kind of consideration is the kind of person who would make a good, loving, stable, parent?

    there are 2 options. having a child makes her grow up, or social services get involved if she isn't raising it properly.
    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    Or are you just keen on punishing the woman to a fate she doesn't want?
    I have a feeling its the latter.

    and again you would be wrong. not wanting abortion on demand to be availible doesn't equal wanting to punish women. suggesting otherwise is nonsense with no basis in reality or fact.

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



  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    nope, again this is one of the usual twists of what someone says into meaning something they don't.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    i am yes . however sentients is irrelevant to this argument as it's an invalid and unviable means to which to judge the availability of abortion given the unborn will be sentient unless circumstances should dictate otherwise.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    i haven't made such a statement, you have claimed i made such a statement and everyone has saw through what you are up to. i can be against abortion on demand (which i am) but recognise i can't stop people from traveling. that is a justifiable and valid viewpoint.

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



  • #1043
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1044
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    end of the road wrote: »
    being against abortion on demand doesn't equal not trusting women. suggesting otherwise is nonsense with no basis in fact and reality.



    we have a right to judge someone when their actions harm others.



    there are 2 options. having a child makes her grow up, or social services get involved if she isn't raising it properly.



    and again you would be wrong. not wanting abortion on demand to be availible doesn't equal wanting to punish women. suggesting otherwise is nonsense with no basis in reality or fact.



    Forcing women to give birth against their will is the definition of causing harm to others.


  • #1045
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    being against abortion on demand doesn't equal not trusting women. suggesting otherwise is nonsense with no basis in fact and reality.



    we have a right to judge someone when their actions harm others.



    there are 2 options. having a child makes her grow up, or social services get involved if she isn't raising it properly.



    and again you would be wrong. not wanting abortion on demand to be availible doesn't equal wanting to punish women. suggesting otherwise is nonsense with no basis in reality or fact.

    Please provide proof for the claim you made that women think they need abortions, but actually don't.
    This is now the 4th time I have asked you.


  • #1046
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    correct.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    it is perfectly sound logic. i have no need to explain the difference.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    i did within my last post.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    i have never made such a statement. you twisted my original statement in another thread into me saying i'm okay with it.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    we very rarely stopped people traveling. only those who actually admitted they were traveling to procure an abortion were stopped, being stopped for going abroad to commit a crime tends to happen when one admits to it.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    i have no need to, if their abortions aren't been had within extreme circumstances such asa threat to the life or of permanent disability or injury to the mother, or a situation where the baby cannot be caried or live to term, then their abortion isn't needed.

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



  • #1047
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Down syndrome Ireland have issued a statement admonishing the Love Both pro life group for using images of DS kids in their marketing materials for the referendum.

    It is an appalling tactic to use images of these kids in this manner. Distressing to them and their families.

    Once again the PLC shooting themselves in the foot.


  • #1048
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    david75 wrote: »
    Down syndrome Ireland have issued a statement admonishing the Love Both pro life group for using images of DS kids in their marketing materials for the referendum.

    So what? DS Ireland could take the same view of the foetus that pro-choice take. Their interest might be in representing DS kids that are born, not DS potential kids.


    It is an appalling tactic to use images of these kids in this manner. Distressing to them and their families.


    What possible distress would using such images cause anyone (presuming the images copyright free / used with consent by the parents of the kids? Bringing home the fact that these kids would be less likely to have been born in a eased abortion environment is a reasonable point to make.


  • #1049
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1050
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    So what? DS Ireland could take the same view of the foetus that pro-choice take. Their interest might be in representing DS kids that are born, not DS potential kids.






    What possible distress would using such images cause anyone (presuming the images copyright free / used with consent by the parents of the kids? Bringing home the fact that these kids would be less likely to have been born in a eased abortion environment is a reasonable point to make.



    ‘So what’.

    Sums up the entire ‘pro life’ stance when their deeply flawed narrative is challenged.


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,903 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That's too broad a brush stroke. You accept what you accept and don't what you don't. They are not an authority on anything, other than insofar as you're prepared to accept them thus.

    You're also broad brush stroking "civilised countries" to mean every member of that civilised country.

    We as a country signed up to the UN through due democratic process. Thus we accept them as an authority much as we accept our judicial system or police force as an authority. Individuals may decide not to accept such authorities but in doing so they're acting against society rather than as part of it.
    I was just making the point that your authority by majority is just that. That you have reasons to pick one majority over another is your affair. But it's not an overwhelming argument. I'm no fan of the Catholic church - I was just making the argument from majority point.

    An authority such as the Catholic church by comparison has no mandate beyond its own membership. As such while it can exert its influence on its membership, even though they often choose to ignore it, it can't reasonably make demands on other members of society.
    As is the notion that the person isn't a person: questionable belief/conjecture applies equally there.

    Which means you're left with the fact a pregnant woman is a person. No one is arguing about that. You can't do much with the statement "it's a fact a pregnant woman is a person". You have to add something to the statement it to make some other point. See below.

    You've just added something to the fact the pregnant women is a person. You've added the foetus into the equation. And seem to be making factual statements about the foetus.

    That makes no sense whatsoever, I've merely pointed that whether or not the foetus is or is not a person is a matter of conjecture. Similarly, whether the freshly implanted ovum is a person is also a matter of conjecture. The latter is of course dismissed by the majority of this country. The upcoming vote will ascertain whether the former will similarly be dismissed. I for one believe it will, by a sizeable majority, and leave us with a far more compassionate country as a result.
    If someone wants to travel for an abortion that is their concern. In the event that society deems the unborn protected from abortion.

    If they travel for an abortion, it will be to a country that allows abortion, hence this is just NIMBYism. If, as is increasingly the case, if the girl or woman has an abortion here in uncontrolled circumstances using questionable abortifacients, that same NIMBYism is putting someone's health or even life in peril.

    We're all dealing from our philosophical deck at the end of the day. We ought recognise that, see that our philopsophies will never meet, and do what we think best to have our particular philosophy hold sway in the society we live in.

    That's democracy.

    Agreed, while we might never agree IMHO there's still value in the discussion.


Advertisement