Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

1…8182848687…174

Comments

  • #2492
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    Contraceptives can and do fail for a number of reasons even when used properly.
    True ... all the more reason to behave responsibly, when it comes to sex, in the first place ... starting with the messages that the contraceptive industry promotes ... such as 'safe sex' ... when all it is is Safer Sex ... and in many cases obviously not even that. Having drunken sex with randomers, for example ... is most likely to end in disaster ... and pregnancy may be the least of a woman's worries after such encounters ... and its quite common out there, with 30% of 'twenty something' women admitting that they had sex with a srtranger, wile drunk ... this is the women who admit to this behaviour ... so the actual percentage is likely to be significantly higher. 77% of women regret a one night stand ... which means that the figure is much higher for the total number who have had one-night stands (when you include the women who don't regret the practice.
    ... and then they expect people to vote to allow them abort their irresponsibly conceived children.

    Quote:-.
    "72% said they regret at least one person they dated while 77% wished they'd never had a one-night stand
    30% said they were ashamed to admit they'd slept with a stranger when drunk."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2273255/Drunken-sex-strangers-flaky-friends-savings-The-regrets-20-women-laid-bare.html


  • #2493
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    True ... all the more reason to behave responsibly, when it comes to sex, in the first place ... starting with the messages that the contraceptive industry promotes ... such as 'safe sex' ... when all it is is Safer Sex ... and in many cases obviously not even that.

    It would seem abstinence or sex solely to impregnate are the only options left.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2494
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    It would seem abstinence or sex solely to impregnate are the only options left.
    ... or willingness (and the personal circumstances) to accept an unwanted pregnancy if contraceptive use fails.

    ... not something the permissive society likes to hear ... but the alternative of killing any unborn child thus conceived is unacceptable.


  • #2495
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... or willingness to accept an unwanted pregnancy if contraceptive use fails .

    So irresponsible sex is okay once choices are made you approve of?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2496
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    So irresponsible sex is okay once choices are made you approve of?
    Where did I say that?
    Irresponsible sex is dangerous as well as being immoral ... sometimes a healthy pregnancy would be the least bad thing that could happen ... an incurable or life altering STD would be significantly worse IMO.


  • Advertisement
  • #2497
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Where did I say that?
    Irresponsible sex is dangerous as well as being immoral ... sometimes a healthy pregnancy would be the least bad thing that could happen ... an incurable or life altering STD would be significantly worse IMO.

    You do realize you're jumping straight to extremes. I still can't believe that abstinence or sex solely for baby-making are the only categories of 'responsible sex'.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2498
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    You do realize you're jumping straight to extremes. I still can't believe that abstinence or sex solely for baby-making are the only categories of 'responsible sex'.
    Neither can I.

    Like I have already said, responsible sex can also involve contraceptive use ... and the willingness (and the personal circumstances) to accept an unwanted pregnancy if the contraceptive use fails.

    ... but then again ... maybe you are solely into sex for reproduction ... you seem to be one of the 'Pope's children'.:)
    Delirium wrote: »
    Also..... Have a word with the pope :P


  • #2499
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    J C wrote: »
    ... fair enough ... but its not advisable ... and if it goes wrong, you will be the author of your own misfortune.

    Hang on hang on.

    So he’s married. And drunk having sex wife with his wife. All their children so far, have been planned.

    But ‘if it goes wrong he is the author of his own misfortune’??? So, If he......gets his wife pregnant?
    Or what wrong exactly?

    What???


  • #2500
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Neither can I.

    Like I have already said, responsible sex can also involve contraceptive use ... and the willingness (and the personal circumstances) to accept an unwanted pregnancy if the contraceptive use fails.
    Sex doesn't become irresponsible because contraceptives fail and an abortion happens.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2501
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    pilly wrote: »
    Grand so, I'm off to post in every other forum that the Christians are banning the pro-choice people.

    Since its acceptable now to tell blatant lies about moderators.

    MOD NOTE

    From the charter:
    Do not discuss moderation decisions in a thread. If you have an issue with the actions of a mod, please contact them via PM. If the dispute has not been resolved after this correspondence, the correct procedure is to then PM the C-mods. If the issue remains unresolved, a thread should be started on the Dispute Resolution Forum.

    This is why I directed posters to cease discussion of moderation/bans.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #2502
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #2503
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    MOD NOTE

    EOTR was included in the direction to not discuss moderation.

    I've deleted the moderation tangent, including any speculations on reasons for bans.


    @everyone please let this be the end of the tangent regarding moderation.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2504
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Many would actually be too poor to stay pregnant but there you go again trying to make it out that women make these decisions on a whim without any thought:rolleyes:
    ... since when is somebody too poor to kill theie unborn child? ... if they really are on the breadline ... they can avail of a wide range of financial supports ranging from lone parent allowance to assistance for social services for everything from a pram to anything else their child may need. Equally, where is the father, in all of this ... shouldn't he also make a personal and financisl contribution to rearing his child?
    ... and in any event, if a woman cannot countenance rearing her child, for whatever reason ... she can always put it up for adoption/fosterage.
    Killing it for financial reasons would be an outrage IMO ... as it is totally unnecessary ... but then necessity isn't required for abortion on demand ... which is waht people are being asked to vote on.

    Abortion rates are inversely correlated with poverty ... and the general fertility rate is inversely correlated with income.
    Quote :-
    abortion rates are directly correlated with income.
    Quote:-
    "One of the peculiar facts the Brookings Institution pulls out is that the abortion rate is higher for the highest income bracket they looked at, which was 400 percent of the poverty rate. Single women who make $47,000 or more a year abort 32 percent of their pregnancies, whereas single women making $11,670 a year or less abort only 8.6 percent of their pregnancies. Women in the middle abort 11 percent of their pregnancies."

    ... so it is 'well heeled' women who have the highest abortion rates ... rates that are 4 times higher than for impoverished women.

    ... with one third of the pregnancies of wealthy women ending in abortion it is no exaggeration to say that they are literally 'too posh to be pregnant' ... and they either never become pregnant ... or when they do, they are most likely, by a long shot, to abort the pregnancy.


  • #2505
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,861 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    ... since when is somebody too poor to kill theie unborn child? ... if they really are on the breadline ... they can avail of a wide range of financial supports ranging from lone parent allowance to assistance for social services for everything from a pram to anything else their child may need. Equally, where is the father, in all of this ... shouldn't he also make a personal and financisl contribution to rearing his child?
    ... and in any event, if a woman cannot countenance rearing her child, for whatever reason ... she can always put it up for adoption/fosterage.
    Killing it for financial reasons would be an outrage IMO ... as it is totally unnecessary ... but then necessity isn't required for abortion on demand ... which is waht people are being asked to vote on.

    Abortion rates are inversely correlated with poverty ... and the general fertility rate is inversely correlated with income.
    Quote :-
    abortion rates are directly correlated with income.
    Quote:-
    "One of the peculiar facts the Brookings Institution pulls out is that the abortion rate is higher for the highest income bracket they looked at, which was 400 percent of the poverty rate. Single women who make $47,000 or more a year abort 32 percent of their pregnancies, whereas single women making $11,670 a year or less abort only 8.6 percent of their pregnancies. Women in the middle abort 11 percent of their pregnancies."

    ... so it is 'well heeled' women who have the highest abortion rates ... rates that are 4 times higher than for impoverished women.

    ... with one third of the pregnancies of wealthy women ending in abortion it is no exaggeration to say that they are literally 'too posh to be pregnant'    .

    Abortion patients are disproportionately poor and low income

    https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2016/abortion-patients-are-disproportionately-poor-and-low-income

    Denial of abortion leads to economic hardship for low-income women

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN1F731Z

    And from.your own source (i see you have been selectively quoting again JC ;) )
    poorer women are five times as likely to have unintended births than more affluent women. A huge chunk of the reason, they conclude, is because of the gap in abortion and contraception access
    That may seem hard to square with data from the Guttmacher Institute that shows that the majority of abortions are obtained by women living in or near poverty: Nearly 70 percent of abortions are for women who make 200 percent or less of the federal poverty line. 
    Middle-class women may abort more of their pregnancies, but since they get pregnant way less often, they still have fewer abortions overall. 


  • #2506
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    Sex doesn't become irresponsible because contraceptives fail and an abortion happens.
    The main reason ... possibly the only reason, actually, that contraceptives fail, is because the sex is being conducted under less than ideal circumstances ... with participants drunk, for example ... they won't know or possibly care what they are doing.
    Sex with a randomer is much more likely to result in condom breakage ... and a 'pump and dump' result for the woman involved ... or possibly the man ... but, at least, he isn't also running the risk of becoming pregnant. This grossly irresponsible carry-on isn't at all rare.

    Having drunken sex with randomers, for example ... is most likely to end in disaster ... and its quite common out there, with 30% of 'twenty something' women admitting that they had sex with a stranger, while drunk ... this is the % of women who admit to this behaviour ... so the actual percentage is likely to be significantly higher.
    77% of women regret a one night stand ... which means that the figure is much higher for the total percentage who have had one-night stands (when you include the women who don't regret the practice.
    ... and then they expect people to vote to allow them abort their irresponsibly conceived children.

    Quote:-.
    "72% said they regret at least one person they dated while 77% wished they'd never had a one-night stand
    30% said they were ashamed to admit they'd slept with a stranger when drunk."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2273255/Drunken-sex-strangers-flaky-friends-savings-The-regrets-20-women-laid-bare.html

    These are English figures ... but there is no reason to believe that Irish 'comely maidens' and their sex partners, don't match or even exceed these figures.


  • #2507
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,861 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    The main reason ... possibly the only reason, actually, that contraceptive fail, is because the sex is being conducted under less than ideal circumstances ... with participants drunk, for example ... they won't know or posibly care what they are doing.
    Sex with a randomer is much more likely to result in condom breakage ... and a 'pump and dump' result for the woman involved ... or possibly the man ... but he isn't also running the risk of becoming pregnant. This grossly irresponsible carry-on isn't at all rare ... its quite common actually.

    Having drunken sex with randomers, for example ... is most likely to end in disaster ... and its quite common out there, with 30% of 'twenty something' women admitting that they had sex with a stranger, while drunk ... this is the % of women who admit to this behaviour ... so the actual percentage is likely to be significantly higher.
    77% of women regret a one night stand ... which means that the figure is much higher for the total percentage who have had one-night stands (when you include the women who don't regret the practice.
    ... and then they expect people to vote to allow them abort their irresponsibly conceived children.

    Quote:-.
    "72% said they regret at least one person they dated while 77% wished they'd never had a one-night stand
    30% said they were ashamed to admit they'd slept with a stranger when drunk."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2273255/Drunken-sex-strangers-flaky-friends-savings-The-regrets-20-women-laid-bare.html

    These are English figure ... but there is no reason to believe that Irish 'comely maidens' and their sex partners, don't match or even exceed these figures.

    So you have no proof of the last part and your just guessing that you are right :rolleyes:


  • #2508
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Abortion patients are disproportionately poor and low income

    https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2016/abortion-patients-are-disproportionately-poor-and-low-income

    Denial of abortion leads to economic hardship for low-income women

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN1F731Z

    And from.your own source (i see you have been selectively quoting again JC ;) )
    Yes, wealthier women get pregnant less ... and abort more , when they do ... hardly a badge of honour ... in a society that is on the point of failing to reproduce itself.

    Wealthy women are leaving it to their poorer sisters to provide the future citizens of our country ... and all of the sacrifice and cost they have with rearing children ... and then, with two large incomes coming in (and no children, in many cases) the wealthy couple enjoy an extra tax allowance of €25,550 (equivalent to €5,110 extra money in their pockets) compared with a couple with children, where one parent has to stay at home to care for them ... not much equality there between these women and these families.
    It is state endorsed and financially rewarded selfishness on a grand scale.

    ... and now abortion on demand is proposed to allow these same wealthy women and their partners to continue with their childless, selfish lifestyle ... even at that cost of the lives of their unborn children.

    ... and all the while using poorer women as the reason for abortion on demand ... when the demand for abortion (as measured by the 32% rate of abortion amongst wealthy women) ... is actually driven by wealthy women ... and not poorer women who go through with their pregnancies in over 90% of cases.

    ... you couldn't make it up !!!

    Quote:-
    "poorer women are five times as likely to have unintended births than more affluent women. A huge chunk of the reason, they conclude, is because of the gap in abortion and contraception access."

    A much more reasonable interpretation of this figure is that poorer women behave much more responsibly and much less selfishly than their wealthier sisters, when they have an unintended pregnancy ... because they are are five times more likely to go through with their pregnancies and have unintended births than more affluent women.
    This contention is supported by the fact that poorer women have the exact same access to contraception as their wealthier sisters ... and they don't even have to pay for it, because it's available on a Medical Card.
    A ryanair flight to Engand for a tenner also means that access to abortion isn't beyond the means of any poor woman. It is clear that poorer women are choosing not to abort much more often than wealthier women.
    The fact that these poor women and their partners are four times less likely to abort and five times more likely to go through with an unintended pregnancy, than their wealthier (and more selfish) sisters and their partners is something poorer women and their partners should be very proud of.


  • #2509
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So you have no proof of the last part and your just guessing that you are right :rolleyes:
    ... from the behaviour I observe on 'nights out' in Ireland and England ... I think that the 'comely maidens' and their partners would give their English cousins a good run for their money, in the irresponsible 'binge drinking and randomer sex stakes'.

    The Irish pro-aborts want to abort like the English ... so there is every reason to believe that they are 'bonking' like the English as well.


  • #2510
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,861 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, wealthier women get pregnant less ... and abort more , when they do ... hardly a badge of honour ... in a society that is on the point of failing to reproduce itself.

    Are population numbers suddenly dwindling?
    Wealthy women are leaving it to their poorer sisters to provide the future citizens of our country ... and all of the sacrifice and cost with rearing children ... and then, with two large incomes coming in (and no children, in many cases) the wealthy couple enjoy an extra tax allowance of €25,550 (equivalent to €5,110 or over €100 per week extra money in their pockets) compared with a couple with children, where one parent stays home to care for them ... not much equality there between these women and these families.
    It is state endorsed and financially rewarded selfishness on a grand scale.

    ... and now abortion on demand is proposed to allow these same wealthy women and their partners to continue with their childless, selfish lifestyle ... even at that cost of the lives of their unborn children.

    If they are so wealthy they can travel to get an abortion! Its the ones who are impoverished and struggling who need access to abortion facilities along with better education and access to contraceptive products.
    ... and all the while using poorer women as the reason for abortion on demand ... when the demand for abortion (as measured by the 30% rate of abortion amongst wealthy women) ... is actually driven by wealthy women ... and not poorer women who go through with their pregnancies in over 90% of cases.

    ... you couldn't make it up !!!


    Because they cannot affird to have an abirtion, NOT because they want to have another mouth to feed!


  • #2511
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,861 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    ... from the behaviour I observe on 'nights out' in Ireland and England ... I think that the 'comely maidens' and their partners would give their English cousins a good run for their money, in the irresponsible 'binge drinking and randomer sex stakes'.

    The Irish pro-aborts want to abort like the English ... so there is every reason to believe that they are 'bonking' like the English as well.

    Jaysus you must have led a very sheltered life JC, people have been having 1 night stands many many years this isnt a new thing you know!

    Something makes me think that you see sex as a dirty act and only to be used for procreation.


  • Advertisement
  • #2512
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Continue on JC, you're doing a great job at convincing people to repeal.

    The hatred for women is just dripping off your posts.


  • #2513
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    A question...
    When is it right to kill another human being just because you want to?


  • #2514
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    pilly wrote: »
    Continue on JC, you're doing a great job at convincing people to repeal.

    The hatred for women is just dripping off your posts.

    Always resorting to personal attacks because there is nothing of substance on the pro abortion side once you strip that from the arguments.

    How about addressing the points properly, instead of always attacking the poster ?

    I've still yet to see one decent argument for taking the lives of unborn children, many of whom are female.


  • #2515
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    Katie Full Leak wrote: »
    A question...
    When is it right to kill another human being just because you want to?

    never, or whenever it suits you, depending on your attitude to other lives.


  • #2516
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Katie Full Leak wrote: »
    A question...
    When is it right to kill another human being just because you want to?

    Judging by the silence of Irish anti-repealers, it's okay when it happens abroad or in secret.


  • #2517
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Bob_Marley wrote:
    How about addressing the points properly, instead of always attacking the poster ?


    Addressing what points exactly Bob?

    That people have one night stands? Absolutely nothing to do with the 8th unless you're purpose is to stop people having joyful sex?

    That richer women have abortions? Newsflash, also nothing to do with the 8th because they will continue to do so regardless. Unless the purpose of retaining the 8th is to stop the poor?

    How can you address ridiculous stuff like that?


  • #2518
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    pilly wrote: »
    Addressing what points exactly Bob?

    That people have one night stands? Absolutely nothing to do with the 8th unless you're purpose is to stop people having joyful sex?

    That richer women have abortions? Newsflash, also nothing to do with the 8th because they will continue to do so regardless. Unless the purpose of retaining the 8th is to stop the poor?

    How can you address ridiculous stuff like that?

    You don't Pilly, because none of it is relevant, so instead of resorting to insults and attacking people (which shows the lack of any decent argument), instead deal with the actual points, and present a valid argument, which has yet to be seen on this forum, as to why people should :

    (1) Remove human life protection rights from the constitution from unborn children

    (2) Take the lives of innocent unborn children.

    - And re-claiming, despite it being refuted, that an unborn child is just of lump of cells (because we all are if you wan't to go down that route) or that a fetus is not a very distinct and vulnerable human life (because biologically in the human life cycle it certainty is ), or that only preferred human lives should have any rights, are not arguments.


  • #2519
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Judging by the silence of Irish anti-repealers, it's okay when it happens abroad or in secret.

    As an anti repealer...it's not ok full stop.
    So what's your opinion since youve not given one?


  • #2520
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Katie Full Leak wrote: »
    As an anti repealer...it's not ok full stop.
    So what's your opinion since youve not given one?

    My stance is that the poster I replied to is being deliberately incendiary and isn't interested in a proper discussion of the matter. In this country, abortion isn't regarded as the killing of another human being. If it was, anti-repealers would be saying or doing a lot more about the thousands of women who travel or the hundreds who order pills every year.


  • Advertisement
  • #2521
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    My stance is that the poster I replied to is being deliberately incendiary and isn't interested in a proper discussion of the matter. In this country, abortion isn't regarded as the killing of another human being. If it was, anti-repealers would be saying or doing a lot more about the thousands of women who travel or the hundreds who order pills every year.

    You still haven't given your opinion.

    And by the way..I was the one who asked the question...but you didn't read that bit.
    What would you suggest be done? Lock up all women of child bearing age in case they are pregnant and want to abort their child in another country!
    We are responsible for what we can do not for what we can't.
    As for abortion not being the killing of an unborn human being..what is it? The killing of an orange?


Advertisement