....... wrote: » There is nothing uncomfortable about it at all. But you are conflating two entirely different things and making sweeping statements that cover both. Comatose patients are not the same as fetuses for many reasons - not just because of sentience. There is no meaningful comparison to be made between someone in a coma and a fetus despite your best attempts to link them. Human worth doesnt apply to fetuses that are 12 weeks old.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Yet it makes me neither squirm nor uncomfortable nor compelled to ignore anything, and the implications you suggest are either A) Not that relevant or not actually that bad anyway. You will find me MORE than willing and capable of having the "uncomfortable" conversations on this subject if they are discussions you actually want to have.
Ismisejack wrote: » Everyone is forgetting the person most affected by an abortion, the child killed, with that in mind in considering starting a new forum as there is two people affected here, the mother and the child, and this forum clearly has no interest discussing the child
bubblypop wrote: » It's not a person & it's not a child. Most rational thinking people just believe that a living breathing woman is more important than a foetus.
Charmeleon wrote: » I think everyone agrees with that. The disagreement is over the proposition that the foetus is as important as a batch of out of date bread. My children are infinitely more important than my pets, I don't treat the animals like walking medical waste though.
kylith wrote: » we’ll just re-legalise marital rape, slavery, and wife beating, shall we? The bible is one of the worst sources of morality one could think of.
tonymontanavu wrote: » This is my first post on boards and I probably only joined to write it! This is a subject that I find both sides of the argument extremely frustrating. I have an opinion on the result that I would like but find it difficult to discuss the matter with either side. I might as well state my side for transparency; I feel the 8th amendment should be repealed and terminations allowed in all cases up to twelve weeks and where the mothers welfare is compromised (within reason in terms of the stage of the pregnancy). I find it extremely insensitive that people on the same side as me reduce the "fetus" to nothing more than cells and argue sentience or any other measure of how human "it" is. Regardless of all of that, it is a baby in the early stages of development, different to a developed baby but not without value and rightly treasured by many potential parents.I also hate the teen/20's women that feel victimised that it is not already an option and it's their body their choice. They are of course perfectly correct regarding circumstances out of the ordinary like the mothers health is comprised or if they were forcibly impregnated etc (Any pro life person who argues to keep the situation exactly as it is heartless in my opinion) but they do currently have the choice of not having sex and therefore not risking the chance of becoming pregnant. What they are arguing is that if they choose to have sex (which always carries a risk of pregnancy regardless of protection) and they do indeed get pregnant they wouldlike another choice- to end that pregnancy. I think that is a reasonable position but you have to accept that is the position. The crux of the argument for me is this - abortion is already available for these women but is not easy to access, involves delays, risks the woman's health travelling etc etc. To keep it inaccessible here is needlessly cruel. If you are religious, don't get one - others can and you will still go to heaven etc. People should just be honest - we are human not some higher power, we kill and eat other creatures because we like to eat them and we have a similar ability to block out the moral implications of an abortion - and that is fine.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Until such time as someone bothers to come up with a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that a god even exists, I am not sure fearing it should be the basis of anything.
Charmeleon wrote: » nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Yet it makes me neither squirm nor uncomfortable nor compelled to ignore anything, and the implications you suggest are either A) Not that relevant or not actually that bad anyway. You will find me MORE than willing and capable of having the "uncomfortable" conversations on this subject if they are discussions you actually want to have. How many times has this rationalisation been repeated to excuse atrocities I wonder. It doesn't bother me, therefore it must be morally justified.
realitykeeper wrote: » Recently I overheard a group of millennials deriding people of faith. A young lady attempted to "defend" the faithful by saying "they don`t know any better." From her tone, I know this remark was sincere and not intended to be in any way derogatory. However, what youngsters fail to understand is that older people lived through an ultra-orthodox Ireland as well as an Ireland of non stop Catholic bashing. In short, we have seen the full movie whereas the youngsters missed the first half. You guys were presented with one paradigm, older people have seen both the former and the latter. We can make an informed choice. Let he who has understanding count the number of the beast. The Devil seeks to confuse, you see. It is the lack of understanding that enables evil to thrive.
drillyeye wrote: » Has everyone who disagrees with me considered disappearing? Like, literally evaporating from existence. Cos that's all we really want, to be fair, to be surrounded with agreeable people that think just like us Thanks in advance
Consonata wrote: » Because an institution which has defended and hid pedophiles is one deserving of respect
david75 wrote: » You’re forgetting that whenever a sentient person is dead, it doesn’t know it’s dead. An embryo or foetus doesn’t even get to that stage of awareness. It doesn’t have sentience or self awareness. You’re also forgetting a foetus is not a child. In no universe is it a child.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I was somewhat agreeing with you and understanding your viewpoint until you got to part bolded. We should be nothing but proud and supportive of all the young women who are so dedicated to their cause and having their voices heard. I know I sound like a broken record but it’s very easy to be so dismissive about it when it isn’t your bodily autonomy at stake - which brings me to my next point. Young women in their teens and twenties are the next generation of pregnant women and mothers and arguably, the outcome of this referendum will effect their lives more than any other age group in the country. And I say that for both the Save and the Repeal side - if anything at all, it’s great to see young people taking an interest in politics and the referendum, regardless of which side they fall on. It should be celebrated.
Fred Swanson wrote: » A collection of cells.
realitykeeper wrote: » The Irish have raped, killed, perpetrated pedophilia, sodomized, lied, cheated, stolen, covered up for wrongdoing, etc, etc, etc. Do the Irish deserve respect?
Fred Swanson wrote: » You have no idea of my position, new registered member.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
