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.
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.
....... 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.
So to make comparable analogies. We don't allow travel to use Dignitas. We do allow travel for abortion.
We would not hesitate to charge someone with murder if they travelled to London and killed their 5 year old child there. Yet we allow them to travel for abortion.
Not only do we allow the travel for abortion - we explicitly voted on it and copper fastened it into the Constitution. The NIMBY aspect of this seems lost on you?
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."
J C wrote: » 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.
antiskeptic wrote: » Are you suggesting that we should legalize drugs to the extent found in the most liberal country in the world. Or lower the age of consent similarly. Or, or, or.. Perhaps you could explain the difference between a society establishing how it wants to operate for itself and NIMBYism? If you could avoid assuming your personal views on any of these topics is correct and keep the explanation neutral, logical and rigorous??
pilly wrote: » Have you ever actually seen a scan rather than keep posting this cartoon. :rolleyes:
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.
uptherebels wrote: » you seem not to be able to comprehend the meaning of nimbyism Its not legalising drugs or lowering the age of consent to match other countries its only having a problem with something inside a geographical location.
So its not having a problem with abortion just as long as its not in ireland. Irish women can have abortions just not here.
antiskeptic wrote: » looks "practically human" to me. Indeed, you'd be very hard put to avoid that conclusion.https://youtu.be/ieqWuQma1Q4
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
pilly wrote: » 1. We have no proof that is an actual scan. 2. It looks no more human to me than a puppy.
ABC101 wrote: » Never heard of a man and woman coming together and procreating a puppy. Or any animal for that matter.
