Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

antiskeptic · 26-04-2018 02:55PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Sounds like a blanket statement for all abortion there.

Remember you actually making a coherent point on this issue?

Me neither.

Context my dear watson. I'm assuming you able to hold onto to it without having to remind you of it each post

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 02:57PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I checked back. It was indeed to yourself that I specifically mentioned the cohort I was talking of. Not rape, not fatal foetal abnormality etc.

All pro-lifers shy away from the hard cases such as rape, FFA, incest and so on so forth. Why?

Because they agree with abortion in those circumstances, because they know they have not got a leg to stand on to deny women abortions on those grounds, they know they are beaten very badly on that front so instead go on to scare-monger and shame women who have abortions for reasons under than those above.

If a woman is not mentally able to deal with a pregnancy, she should not have to do so.

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 02:59PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Context my dear watson. I'm assuming you able to hold onto to it without having to remind you of it each post

Not at all, all each of your posts do is remind of the sheer absurdity, ridiculousness, misogynistic and callousness shown by the pro-birth side.

Labeling abortion as a "hangover cure"? Cringe-worthy.

....... · 26-04-2018 03:02PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 26-04-2018 03:02PM

smacl wrote: »

So if you have a motorcycling accident, should be left to die on the roadside, after all it was your fault?

By no means. What I don't expect is that the consequences of my choices are eliminated after the fact. It hollows out the initial activity.

Speculate on an investment. It's a sure fire thing, but hey! if it goes wrong I get my money back.

Delirium · 26-04-2018 03:03PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you bridge the gap between 50% and not 100% with something other than irresponsibility and immaturity?

No tyre promises to save a careless rider. No helmet promised to save from every conceivable impact

You play the game you take what comes with it. Else stay out of the game.

Abortion is just a hangover cure: we want all of the upside without any of the downside. Human nature of course: but a hollowed out kind of existence. Childlike. Immature. Selfish

All of the above is through the lens of being anti-abortion, as well as being quite degrading to anyone whose had an abortion. I.e. people don't give careful consideration to having an abortion.

Just because you don't agree with another persons choice, doesn't mean they have nothing between the ears or they are immature.

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 03:10PM

Delirium wrote: »

All of the above is through the lens of being anti-abortion, as well as being quite degrading to anyone whose had an abortion. I.e. people don't give careful consideration to having an abortion.

Just because you don't agree with another persons choice, doesn't mean they have nothing between the ears or they are immature.

It's perfectly fine to be anti-abortion and not agree with the act/procedure of abortion.

It's not fine to compare it to a hangover cure and make such a degrading comment as was previously mentioned. There are women on boards (particular on the repeal the 8th thread) who have had abortions along with my own experience in my partner having an abortion in the UK because she wasn't granted one here, who would find such comments ridiculously misogynistic by comparing their struggle to a simple "hangover cure".

antiskeptic · 26-04-2018 03:11PM

Abortion (in this "bulk cohort" certainly) has shades of the conquest of the America's, Australia and the Holocaust.

At root in all these situations you have a person who wants something: liebensraum, lush fertile prairie, a rich supply of minerals.

Another stands in their way.

In order to eliminate the person standing in your way you have to overcome a moral hurdle. Thou shalt not kill is woven into us afterall.

And so, you simply render them (and convince yourself with whatever tool suits that purpose) they are a non-person, an ubermensch.

It can be the colour of their skin, their culture, their hook nose or what the god of science (who aren't in a position to comment philosophically) says

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 03:14PM

Right so we have someone on record stating that abortion "in a bulk cohort" (considering over 3000 women travel abroad a year for abortions, hardly a bulk considering our population size) has shades of the Holocaust (mass genocide of over 6 million Jews).

No words.

EDIT: bearing in mind that denying people certain rights were a key aspect of those "conquests" that would make aims of both campaigns contain shades of these conquests. Great arguing point there, really solid.

o1s1n · 26-04-2018 03:17PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abortion (in this "bulk cohort" certainly) has shades of the conquest of the America's, Australia and the Holocaust.

At root in all these situations you have a person who wants something: liebensraum, lush fertile prairie, a rich supply of minerals.

Another stands in their way.

In order to eliminate the person standing in your way you have to overcome a moral hurdle. Thou shalt not kill is woven into us afterall.

And so, you simply render them (and convince yourself with whatever tool suits that purpose) they are a non-person, an ubermensch.

It can be the colour of their skin, their culture, their hook nose or what the god of science (who aren't in a position to comment philosophically) says

With posts like that you should be writing for Waterford Whispers.

antiskeptic · 26-04-2018 03:19PM

Delirium wrote: »

All of the above is through the lens of being anti-abortion, as well as being quite degrading to anyone whose had an abortion. I.e. people don't give careful consideration to having an abortion.

You should see the rates for second and third abortions.

Does the disconnect between 50% failure of contraception mentioned earlier and near 100% efficacy of properly used contraception point towards a tendency towards careful consideration?

Am I really going to forget to put on my helmet? Or ride on bald tyres? Not if I consider the activity soberly and as one with consequences I'll bear.

Just because you don't agree with another persons choice, doesn't mean they have nothing between the ears or they are immature.

I was referring to "failure of contraception"

end of the road · 26-04-2018 03:28PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Can you please outline some of these options, I asked you a few pages ago to clarify but you never responded?

We know adoption isn't possible in this country, so I can only presume you are encouraging dumping newborn babies into the care system?

Also what options are there financially, besides "working more hours" and "contacting a charity"? Working more hours isn't very helpful advice to an unemployed new mother with no babysitter. Charities are there for short term crisis's, not to support an entire family's living costs for 18+ years.

Please explain what these options are because so far your advice and opinions just aren't stacking up.

i gave you the options. we can change the issues around adoption that make it currently impossible for people who want to adopt, to adopt.

eviltwin wrote: »

Every single pregnant woman knows her options. If she's choosing abortion it's not out of ignorance, it's because she's made the decision that its her best option.

I wouldn't want to see any woman pressured into a decision she doesn't want because of other concerns, we should have a society that fully supports all choice but that includes abortion.

No matter how much we offer a woman with a crisis pregnancy there will always be those who just don't want to be pregnant and no amount of patronising rubbish from certain groups will change that.

the same argument could be used for example, infanticide. thankfully, we won't be legalising that soon. outside medical necessity killing the unborn isn't required as a "choice" . it's not my job to support those who kill others unless there is an extreme reason by where there was no other option and thankfully, even if the 8th is repealed, there will be a large amount of society who will never support or condone the killing of the unborn outside medical necessity. just like they wouldn't support the killing of others unless it is in self defence.

robarmstrong wrote: »

All pro-lifers shy away from the hard cases such as rape, FFA, incest and so on so forth. Why?

Because they agree with abortion in those circumstances, because they know they have not got a leg to stand on to deny women abortions on those grounds, they know they are beaten very badly on that front so instead go on to scare-monger and shame women who have abortions for reasons under than those above.

If a woman is not mentally able to deal with a pregnancy, she should not have to do so.

actually those who would disagree with abortion in those cases do in their view have a leg to stand on, dispite us not agreeing with them. their view is that certainly they would have a leg to stand on, because they aren't going to care whether others disagree with them.
the reason most of us on the pro-life side agree with abortion in those cases is nothing to do with supposibly not having a leg to stand on if we weren't to do so, but because we cannot support in good conscience both mother and baby dying when the mother can be saved. it's like excepting that sometimes it is necessary to kill someone for self-defence.
most people do not shame women for having abortions. telling them they are wrong to kill the unborn when both are healthy is not shaming. if a fringe group were spreading the names and addresses of women who had abortions, that would certainly be shaming and they would rightly have no support outside their little group.

Delirium · 26-04-2018 03:30PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You should see the rates for second and third abortions.

One might think that people that are poor are having abortions as they can't afford a child.

Does the disconnect between 50% failure of contraception mentioned earlier and near 100% efficacy of properly used contraception point towards a tendency towards careful consideration?

Am I really going to forget to put on my helmet? Or ride on bald tyres? Not if I consider the activity soberly and as one with consequences I'll bear.

And none of which are a certainty of avoiding an accident. Yet should we consider you an irresponsible driver because you end up injured even with all you did to be as safe as possible? You seem to suggest that the answer is yes.

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 03:31PM

EOTR give over, you're in favour of abortion in certain circumstances, you have no bother with women going abroad to get one (nimbyism at it's finest), yet you found your niche to try fight a corner on.

You're voting no because it doesn't suit you to vote yes, plain and simple. You voting no to "hold out in case of a better proposal" is nothing short of one of the most selfish and ridiculous things that's probably ever been posted regarding this argument.

If you are for abortion in some situations, you aren't pro-life and tbh you're just stirring the pot by voting no and telling people why you're voting no.

NuMarvel · 26-04-2018 03:33PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You should see the rates for second and third abortions.

Does the disconnect between 50% failure of contraception mentioned earlier and near 100% efficacy of properly used contraception point towards a tendency towards careful consideration?

Am I really going to forget to put on my helmet? Or ride on bald tyres? Not if I consider the activity soberly and as one with consequences I'll bear.

Let's draw some parallels with abortion, and our current laws.

If you do ride on a bad tyre, or forget to wear your helmet, are you saying the state shouldn't provide services to you to remedy the consequences of your choice, unless there is a real and substantial risk to your life? Should the only choices open to you be i) live with the consequences of your choice, ii) travel elsewhere for these services, or iii) import medication, with the risk of imprisonment if you're discovered?

end of the road · 26-04-2018 03:38PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

EOTR give over, you're in favour of abortion in certain circumstances, you have no bother with women going abroad to get one (nimbyism at it's finest), yet you found your niche to try fight a corner on.

You're voting no because it doesn't suit you to vote yes, plain and simple. You voting no to "hold out in case of a better proposal" is nothing short of one of the most selfish and ridiculous things that's probably ever been posted regarding this argument.

If you are for abortion in some situations, you aren't pro-life and tbh you're just stirring the pot by voting no and telling people why you're voting no.

i do have bother with those going outside the country to kill their unborn but there is nothing i can do about it. i can try and do something about preventing such from legally happening via my vote. i'm voting no because i don't agree with the proposals being put forward by the government should the 8th be repealed. voting no to anything is effectively voting no because the proposals don't suit my vision of society, that's perfectly fine and there is nothing selfish about it.

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 03:41PM

You're voting no to hold out in case of a better proposal, meaning you're essentially ransoming your vote (not giving a toss about the women who are pregnant and need access to an abortion here) until you get something that suits your ridiculously outlandish views of society. So yeah, you're putting yourself (and in your eyes bizarrely - the unborn, defender of the unborn, offender and oppressor of the pregnant) first.

What happens for you once the 8th is repealed?

SusieBlue · 26-04-2018 03:42PM

end of the road wrote: »

i gave you the options. we can change the issues around adoption that make it currently impossible for people who want to adopt, to adopt.

No, that's a total cop out. Your options were to work more hours or get help from a charity. Those are not feasible long term options to help someone bring up a child. A cop out.

35 years have passed since the 8th was put in place to change adoption laws.
It hasn't happened. Its wishful thinking to think that it will happen in the future, seeing as we have no solid basis to believe it will happen.

Regardless, this is of absolutely no use to a woman having a crisis pregnancy today. How will adoption laws changing in the future help a woman, having that crisis, right now? Is her option to give birth in the hope that somewhere down the line, in a few years, adoption laws might change?
Is that honestly your advice?

You sound like you have no mass or respect for life, if that would be your offering.

You have no suggestions. You have no options. Your advice is weak and unhelpful. You really need to rethink this because what you are offering as "alternatives" just isn't feasible.

end of the road · 26-04-2018 03:46PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

You're voting no to hold out in case of a better proposal, meaning you're essentially ransoming your vote (not giving a toss about the women who are pregnant and need access to an abortion here) until you get something that suits your ridiculously outlandish views of society. So yeah, you're putting yourself (and in your eyes bizarrely - the unborn, defender of the unborn, offender and oppressor of the pregnant) first.

What happens for you once the 8th is repealed?

actually i do care about those pregnant women needing genuine access to abortion, hence i'm voting against abortion on demand and the use of those women's situation to push for it. hard cases shouldn't be used to push for abortion on demand and i'm making a single stand against it. i'm not oppressing anyone.

if the 8th is repealed, then i would hope there will be a campaign to remove the 12 week no restriction and to only legislate for the hard cases.

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 03:48PM

end of the road wrote: »

actually i do care about those pregnant women needing genuine access to abortion, hence i'm voting against abortion on demand and the use of those women's situation to push for it.

So to show you care about these pregnant women you're voting No.

Gotcha, makes sense.

antiskeptic · 26-04-2018 03:49PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Right so we have someone on record stating that abortion "in a bulk cohort" (considering over 3000 women travel abroad a year for abortions, hardly a bulk considering our population size) has shades of the Holocaust (mass genocide of over 6 million Jews).

No words.

First you forgot I was talking about a bulk cohort. Now you forget what the bulk cohort refers to.

EDIT: bearing in mind that denying people certain rights were a key aspect of those "conquests" that would make aims of both campaigns contain shades of these conquests. Great arguing point there, really solid.

So preventing these conquests would have been a denial of rights. A denial of the right to render another sub human in order to obtain liebensraum?

You would argue that the occupant of the womb isnt human in the first place I suppose.

I wad just highlighting the similarity : own interest / something blocking the way / that something being considered un/sub human. Hey presto! Blockage cleared.

Oh yeah, with death being the enabling currency.

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 03:53PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

First you forgot I was talking about a bulk cohort. Now you forget what the bulk cohort refers to.

So preventing these conquests would have been a denial of rights. A denial of the right to render another sub human in order to obtain liebensraum?

You would argue that the occupant of the womb isnt human in the first place I suppose.

I wad just highlighting the similarity : own interest / something blocking the way / that something being considered un/sub human. Hey presto! Blockage cleared.

And I pointed out the blatant fallacy in your statement, as I am more than happy to continue to do, providing you fulfill your end of the bargain and continue to post nonsense.

....... · 26-04-2018 03:58PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 26-04-2018 04:11PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

some services have certain criteria to meet before people can avail of them. abortion should be no different given what is involved.

SusieBlue · 26-04-2018 04:12PM

end of the road wrote: »

some services have certain criteria to meet before people can avail of them. abortion should be no different given what is involved.

So are you saying that when a woman finds herself pregnant after being raped, she should wait a couple of years for the case to go to trial, and then euthanise her 2 year old?

Or do you have a different method of dealing with rape cases?

....... · 26-04-2018 04:14PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 26-04-2018 04:19PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Let's draw some parallels with abortion, and our current laws.

If you do ride on a bad tyre, or forget to wear your helmet, are you saying the state shouldn't provide services to you to remedy the consequences of your choice, unless there is a real and substantial risk to your life? Should the only choices open to you be i) live with the consequences of your choice, ii) travel elsewhere for these services, or iii) import medication, with the risk of imprisonment if you're discovered?

The state should help remedy and it does. But only up to a point - it will let you live with all that lies beyond its preparedness to do for you.

What the state does, doesnt alter the selfishness of the self indulgence: desire to have the good bits without having to face the consequences.

Be it riding with bald tyres or evading the responsibility that comes with sex.

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 04:21PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The state should help remedy and it does. But only up to a point - it will let you live with all that lies beyond its preparedness to do for you.

What the state does, doesnt alter the selfishness of the self indulgence: desire to have the good bits without having to face the consequences.

Be it riding with bald tyres or evading the responsibility that comes with sex.

So long story short, it's revealed.

Better keep those legs closed girls, regardless if you've contraception or not.

SusieBlue · 26-04-2018 04:21PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The state should help remedy and it does. But only up to a point - it will let you live with all that lies beyond its preparedness to do for you.

What the state does, doesnt alter the selfishness of the self indulgence: desire to have the good bits without having to face the consequences.

Be it riding with bald tyres or evading the responsibility that comes with sex.

And you personally feel that children should be weaponised into punishments so that their careless parents have to face the consequences?
Is that what you're saying?
Can you please tell me how inflicting an unwilling mother on a child is in his best interests? Does that sound like the makings of a happy, stable, childhood, to you?
Or are you only interested in making the woman suffer for having sex?

end of the road · 26-04-2018 04:47PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it will be very different. real criteria would rule out the economic/lifestyle/convenience abortions which are not required. the criteria proposed is just a sup to try and get the proposals passed.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments