....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
smacl wrote: » 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.
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.
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 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.
Agreed, while we might never agree IMHO there's still value in the discussion.
end of the road wrote: » not at all. ireland will be less of a compassionate country as a result of effectively voting for abortion on demand. hugely less so. abortion on demand goes against compassion. a society is judged by how it treats it's most vunerable, and by allowing the unborn to be killed outside genuinely necessary circumstances, we are not a fully compationate society, and we are a regressive society. it's not nimbyism at all. it's the state trying as much as is practical to protect the rights of the unborn. the state recognises however that people have a right to use the services of other european nations. the only one putting their health at risk by using questionable pills is the person taking them. the rest of us are not responsible for it. we don't force people to take them, they choose to take them.
smacl wrote: » 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.
smacl wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
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.
If someone wants to travel for an abortion that is their concern. In the event that society deems the unborn protected from abortion.
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.
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.
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.
It is an appalling tactic to use images of these kids in this manner. Distressing to them and their families.
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.
WhiteRoses wrote: » So when it comes down to it, its clear you don't trust women.
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?
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?
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.
end of the road wrote: » they are wrong. abortion on demand isn't needed in ireland, abortion in extreme circumstances is needed in ireland.
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
