WhiteRoses wrote: » I’m asking which would take priority, in your opinion? If you could only save one? And I don’t believe they should have no rights. I just believe the mothers rights should be superior.
volchitsa wrote: » So the question is why should the living breathing woman who may well have other people dependent on her, be forced by law to give priority over her own health to something with the consciousness level of a jellyfish?
Cabaal wrote: » You really are a hoot, You very stated you are not religious, yet you've claimed who can or cannot call themselves catholic or a Christian which is utterly laughable. Here you are again decoding how a Christian can vote. A Christian can and do have abortions, plenty do and they are still Christians
ABC101 wrote: » Can you explain what you mean by not alive and breathing? Cells obtain oxygen via the blood stream in a adult human. A unborn baby obtains oxygen / nutrients via the umbilical cord. You mention pregnancy been forced upon women by law. Yet pregnancy is not a legal construct. Pregnancy is a natural development in mammals. Technically it would be more correct to state that nature is forcing the pregnancy process on a woman who successfully concieves.
ABC101 wrote: » Can you explain what you mean by not alive and breathing? Cells obtain oxygen via the blood stream in a adult human. A unborn baby obtains oxygen / nutrients via the umbilical cord.
You mention pregnancy been forced upon women by law. Yet pregnancy is not a legal construct. Pregnancy is a natural development in mammals. Technically it would be more correct to state that nature is forcing the pregnancy process on a woman who successfully concieves.
volchitsa wrote: » Nobody has said they are dead, but that they are not "alive and breathing", ie not alive in the way a human being is alive, with feelings and thoughts, but alive in the way a jellyfish is alive. So the question is why should the living breathing woman who may well have other people dependent on her, be forced by law to give priority over her own health to something with the consciousness level of a jellyfish? If she chooses to do so, perfect, but if she chooses not to, for whatver reason, why should you or anyone else have the right to prevent her?
ABC101 wrote: » Technically that cannot be correct. All humans regardless of degree of development are made up of cells. The cells must be in a environment which is favorable to life, whether it is inside the womb or outside the womb. A unborn baby cannot be made up of dead cells.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Yes, the living, breathing females who are carrying the pregnancies. The females who are actually alive. Not the fetuses/unborn babies.
end of the road wrote: » pilly wrote: » Again the mask slips. Nothing Christian about this. well, there is nothing christian about killing the unborn outside medical circumstances, so it's not surprising that people are going to become passionate about such a massive issue where the human rights of the unborn are at stake. this will mean telling some cold hard truths even if uncomfortable, or will mean people giving opinions based on their experiences, and so on.
pilly wrote: » Again the mask slips. Nothing Christian about this.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You can vote to repeal without being pro abortion. I myself would never have one and would offer all other options as preferable to that of abortion. However, I can recognize that there are times and situations where abortion is the only choice. I support women having that choice in Ireland. I don’t want any living person to suffer any further because of the 8th amendment.
david75 wrote: » God save us from those that interfere with small boys and women’s wombs.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You can’t see the wood from the trees. You have no idea of the circumstances other people find themselves in where abortion is necessary. Not to mention the effects the 8th has on maternity care and consent. You absolutely should facilitate other people having a choice in the matter, because to disagree with others having a choice is to imply that your opinion on the matter is superior to theirs, and that’s extremely arrogant.
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: » 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. 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.
WhiteRoses wrote: » The point is flying over your head. The fetus cannot survive without the woman, it is inside her body, it should be up to her what happens it. When the baby can survive by itself it’s a different ball game. Whether it’s male or female is irrelevant, the woman should take priority regardless.
WhiteRoses wrote: » It’s a fetus/baby, it’s not like we’re talking about a 7 year old here. The gender is irrelevant anyway. Look, as I said, I feel my sister/mother/friends are more important. You feel the embryo is. That’s ok. Only one of us is forcing their opinion on the other, though. And I would rather let other people make up their own mind rather than force everyone to let the unborn take priority over their partner/relative.
WhiteRoses wrote: » No they aren’t. If they were there would be no need for abortion because the baby could simply handed over to social services and there would be no harm done either way. If a fertility clinic was on fire, and there was a woman inside, and you could only save one, would you save the unborn embryos in the Petri dishes or the woman?
WhiteRoses wrote: » In your opinion. I think it can be very justifiable. And I know all about what is involved, and I still support repealing the 8th.
Bob_Marley wrote: don't feed the troll folks
WhiteRoses wrote: Why are you talking in riddles? Say what you mean or don’t say anything at all.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » If you have to ask, you don't know.
david75 wrote: God save us from those that interfere with small boys and women’s wombs.
Bob_Marley wrote: » Just because I would not take another human life, does not mean that I should support the choice of others to do so. Other than to facilitate the taking of another human life, I see no reason to remove the existing protection of human life from the constitution.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » I told you you that you don't know who is talking to you.
Bob_Marley wrote: No thankfully they don't. It's time to take the plank out of your eye and stop casting stones.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » You don't believe me.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » You are not listening to me. LISTEN CAREFULLY. I said that the game is up.
Bob_Marley wrote: » And in your opinion you may claim it's justifiable to take a defenseless human life, but I still support retaining the human rights in the constitution and not removing them, and not taking innocent human life.
Bob_Marley wrote: maybe start addressing the actual points instead for a change of the personal attacks.
