smacl wrote: » Whether or not the unborn foetus currently has a right to life is what this entire debate is about. You are clearly of the opinion that it does, the law as it currently stands supports that, but very many people feel that this should not be the case as it infringes the pregnant woman's human rights and hence the move to change such law. As so many have stated here already, a foetus is not a baby and repeatedly referring to it as a baby does not change that.
smacl wrote: » The litany of clerical abuses throughout recent history in this country aren't a matter of my opinion, they're a well documented fact. Subsequent unrelated charitable activity, however beneficial that might be, doesn't cancel that out. That an organisation run largely by elderly men would seek to influence and even dictate women's reproductive behaviour based on their own anachronistic moral outlook is clearly a nonsense.
smacl wrote: » More importantly, the upcoming referendum stands to improve the inexcusable treatment of pregnant women in this country, who for whatever reason, do not wish to continue with their pregnancy. That you find this an appalling injustice is your opinion, but it would seem likely you'll find it to be a minority one. The injustice as I see it today is that a woman cannot choose to legally have an abortion in this country. It does not mean that the woman who would make such as choice will have the baby, it just means that she will be exposed to danger and unnecessary burden to have the abortion outside of the Irish health care system purely to protect the narrow-minded morality of those who are unlikely to ever have to make such a difficult choice.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
end of the road wrote: » ireland is a civilised country by not allowing unrestricted and on demand abortion. countries that allow abortion on demand and unrestricted are less civilised as they allow the killing of the unborn without good reason.
pitifulgod wrote: » Sweden and Denmark offer fantastic support to families and children. But they're less civilised because they allow abortion?
david75 wrote: » The only people we should be listening to in this entire situation are the women brave enough to come forward to speak about their experiences. Our ‘sincerely held beliefs’ really have no place when put into context against actual real life experiences and tragedies women are facing. This is thought provokinghttps://twitter.com/skynews/status/957892095108268033
antiskeptic wrote: » Whether or not the the foetus is a person is a philosophical matter. Neither the law or medicine has a way of establishing the truth of the matter....
end of the road wrote: » the unborn's rights do have a place however. the unborn have a right to live.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Your like an echo chamber. Did you even read his post or watch the video before posting?
end of the road wrote: » i did yes. why?
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: » Are the following philosophical matters or are they exclusively religious matters? 1 Is a zygote a person. 2 Is a blastocyst a person. 3 is a natural abortion (euphemistically called a miscarriage) a person. 4 can a person realistically qualify as a being a person without the quality of having a brain – or even a framework where a brain could reside. I think these are purely religious questions and certainly not philosophical questions. I would say practical philosophy (i.e. that which could be directly translatable to this upcoming referendum question) needs much more solid ground to operate around/on.
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: » Are the following philosophical matters or are they exclusively religious matters? 1 Is a zygote a person. 2 Is a blastocyst a person. 3 is a natural abortion (euphemistically called a miscarriage) a person. 4 can a person realistically qualify as a being a person without the quality of having a brain – or even a framework where a brain could reside.
smacl wrote: » Whether or not the unborn foetus currently has a right to life is what this entire debate is about. You are clearly of the opinion that it does, the law as it currently stands supports that, but very many people feel that this should not be the case as it infringes the pregnant woman's human rights and hence the move to change such law. As so many have stated here already, a foetus is not a baby and repeatedly referring to it as a baby does not change that. You seem rather confused between rights and obligations resulting from choices made here. Even the obligations you cite here aren't exactly binding, regardless of repercussions for not meeting them. The litany of clerical abuses throughout recent history in this country aren't a matter of my opinion, they're a well documented fact. Subsequent unrelated charitable activity, however beneficial that might be, doesn't cancel that out. That an organisation run largely by elderly men would seek to influence and even dictate women's reproductive behaviour based on their own anachronistic moral outlook is clearly a nonsense. More importantly, the upcoming referendum stands to improve the inexcusable treatment of pregnant women in this country, who for whatever reason, do not wish to continue with their pregnancy. That you find this an appalling injustice is your opinion, but it would seem likely you'll find it to be a minority one. The injustice as I see it today is that a woman cannot choose to legally have an abortion in this country. It does not mean that the woman who would make such as choice will have the baby, it just means that she will be exposed to danger and unnecessary burden to have the abortion outside of the Irish health care system purely to protect the narrow-minded morality of those who are unlikely to ever have to make such a difficult choice.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Because, as pointed out, the unborn in this case was never going to live. Obviously you just misunderstood the spirit of the video. It just seemed like you took an opportunity to soapbox because your reply had literally nothing to do with PP’s post or the video in the link. You seem to have a couple of statements that you just rant off every time you post, you post these whether they are relevant to the post you are replying to or not. Reminds me of being in school when you didn’t know the answer to a question on the test, so just waffled on without really answering the question and hoped for the best.
david75 wrote: » I was born in 75 to 16 year old parents and the priest wouldn’t baptise me until they were married. So I wasn’t a person in the churches eyes. But a zygote is a person? Wow.
J C wrote: » Two wrongs don't make a right.
david75 wrote: » Nonsensical reply but within the illogical frame of it yes perhaps two wrongs can make a right and we allow women to make their own choices free of the redundant outdated interference and oppression of the church and its sheep like followers.
david75 wrote: » IF the referendum isn’t passed what have the PLC actually achieved? Women are going to continue to have abortions in their thousands. Just not here in Ireland. So the only victory is denying them and medical practioners the ability to give best care possible with FFA etc What kind of victory is that?
david75 wrote: » IF the referendum isn’t passed what have the PLC actually achieved? Women are going to continue to have abortions in their thousands. Just not here in Ireland. So the only victory is denying them and medical practioners the ability to give best care possible with FFA etc What kind of victory is that? Leaving women vulnerable to no medical care in the name of the church? I thiughtt it was only sharia law that forced women to be worthless. Apparently Catholicism is the same.
