fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » And rightly so. When did a democracy decide what is morally right or wrong? Surely God's law supercedes all human law?
railer201 wrote: They don't - but majorities rule in a democracy. God's law will have various interpretations depending on your individual point of view, or particular Christian denomination. I was brought up with the more enlightened Christian viewpoint that the right to life of the mother was greater than that of the unborn child. If a hard choice had to be made then so be it.
Bob_Marley wrote: » true atheism is just simply a lack of belief, other than than that atheists have absolutely noting in common. nothing wrong with lack of belief - if that someone honestly can't believe something to be true, they can't. - also Christians have failed to convince them remember, often because of their poor conduct and harsh words like owenybaloneyThe rest of the stuff you refer to is not simple atheism, but in fact political anti-Christian, and anti-theism - state atheism - masked up as mere atheism.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » How would she feel facing God not having repented of her abortion?
J C wrote: » Quite true ... but still heading towards the same result for Christians and Christianity.
Bob_Marley wrote: » but you're happy enough if defenseless unborn children can be killed, some middle ground indeed.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Well I wouldn’t be prepared to afford that unborn child any rights at the expense of the living, breathing woman carrying that pregnancy. They cannot be equal imo. Her wants and needs are far superior and more important than those of the baby she is carrying. Until the baby is viable to survive on its own outside the womb, what happens to it should be up to her. Because it resides inside her body, therefore she should have the ultimate say.
Bob_Marley wrote: » There's two lives and two bodies involved here, not one, and both of them could well be female. They have an equal right to life, you never achieve equal rights for human life by killing one of them.
WhiteRoses wrote: » The baby cannot survive or grow without her. If it were as simple as them being two separate entities/lives we could just remove the baby and let the woman get on with her life, and there would be no need for abortion at all. However, while the unborn resides in her body, and depends on her for viability, well, they really aren’t all that separate. Where is the equality in forcing a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant to carry to term? The gender of the baby is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter whether it’s male or female. The fact of the matter is, the woman is alive, living and breathing. She should be prioritized above the needs of an unborn who cannot live or survive outside the womb. Her womb. It’s as simple as that really.
end of the road wrote: » she can't have the ultimate say as it's a separate life and a separate human being. the fact it is in her body is just part of the developmental stage, but it isn't hers to do with as she pleases, therefore what happens it cannot be up to her. both wants are equal unless medical necessity decides otherwise, for which the mother would be the one to be saved given she has the greatist chance of surviving. her wants can only be equal to the unborn in a proper humanitarian society bar medically necessary circumstances. if you are willing to afford the child rights once it is born, you have to afford it rights before it is born.
Bob_Marley wrote: » The unborn child is also a living breathing innocent human being, lots of people can't survive without help from others, this isn't a reason to kill them, killing her child isn't a solution to anything.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Are you going to be around to help financially and emotionally support this woman while she brings up the baby that she is forced to carry, yet bizarrely (according to you) what happens to the baby isn’t up to her? Who should be in charge of decisions regarding the baby if not the mother?
WhiteRoses wrote: » They are incomparable and to suggest they are is a strawmans argument. I would see my sister/friend/mother as more important and valuable than a mere weeks old pregnancy. I know my boyfriend would also see me as more important. If you disagree, and think that an 8 week old fetus is more important than your female relative/partner carrying it, that’s your prerogative. Not everyone is going to feel the same and not everyone is going to be willing to make that sacrifice, though. And that is exactly why I support repealing the 8th.
Bob_Marley wrote: » No human life is superior to another, your sister/friend/mother would not exist if someone had killed them while they were a defenseless unborn child.
Bob_Marley wrote: » There are hundreds of Irish couples on waiting lists that could give this child a loving home, there's no need to kill them instead.
WhiteRoses wrote: » And if they did I would know nothing about it because they’d never have existed so I’d have nothing to worry about.
end of the road wrote: » she is prioritized over the needs of the unborn where required. she is not prioritized over the needs of the unborn where not required, as both are equal and there is no need to prioritize her. it's her womb but she is not allowed to kill the unborn inside it within the state, as the irish state recognises the unborn as the human beings they are and they recognise the unborn must have a right to life. i am helping to financially support this woman while she brings up the baby via my taxes. she isn't allowed to kill the unborn within the irish state, if she decides once born to put him or her up for adoption she can do that.
Bob_Marley wrote: » so by that logic as long as you don't know they were killed, it's ok to take their life.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Domestic adoption (outside of step parent/familial adoptions) is pretty much non existent in Ireland. I would also disagree with you about the hundreds of Irish couples - the average family size gets smaller every year, I think it’s 2 kids on average now. More couples than ever are opting not to have kids at all. And advances in fertility treatments (specifically clomid and IVF) mean that those who struggle now have many more options. Adoption is very far down the list for most people considering having children. The appetite for it that was prevalent in Ireland during the time of the laundries is no more.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Hopefully after the referendum they will no longer be equal and this will no longer be the case. Women will finally be free to make the best decisions for their own life without Church/State interference.
Bob_Marley wrote: » Absolute rubbish. Just in my area, I know several women who can't have children and are desperate to adopt. An in law also adopted two children who have now both just recently finished primary school, and are living life to the full.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I trust other people to make the best decisions for their own lives, I have no business interfering with another woman’s reproductive organs. They are hers and hers alone. I don’t feel it’s my place to dictate what another woman does with her body.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Good for them. It still isn’t a common occurrence. Doing it in Ireland is extremely limited, time consuming and expensive. Meanwhile the child is growing up in foster care wondering when they’ll (if ever) have their own home. That’s why most people who adopt do so internationally from India, Vietnam, Russia etc. Its far easier to do so from those countries.
Bob_Marley wrote: » Again their are two lives involved not one, and you don't increase human rights by removing them. And as for female rights, aborted children can be female just as much as male.
Bob_Marley wrote: » Yet your happy enough interfering with a defenseless unborn child's organs and dictating what happens their body, who also could be a female.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I don’t know why you keep being up gender, the gender of the baby is irrelevant. The fact is that the woman does not hold full bodily autonomy at the expense of affording the unborn rights. I don’t believe this to be fair or just.
WhiteRoses wrote: » The state doesn’t even recognize the unborn as people until the 24 week mark, stillbirths and miscarriages before that point do not get death certificates. According to the state they never existed. Which is why it’s bizarre that the 8th amendment holds a mere weeks old fetus to be equal to that of the woman carrying it, it’s a contradiction.
