Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

....... · 30-04-2018 12:52PM

This post has been deleted.

smacl · 30-04-2018 01:10PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you apply 'actual usage' think to your parachuting pre-jump checks?

How many times in their lives do most people go parachute jumping? Ironically, one of the main reasons in my time was support of the rape crisis centre. How many times do they have sex?

The parachute analogy supposes no mid-jump pill to compensate for a less than optimal approach to responsibility. I am arguing that abortion availability diminishes responsibility.

I guess you've never done a parachute jump. Count to ten, check canopy is open, if it has failed, deploy emergency chute.

Apart from yet another dubious analogy, for a man to talk about the diminished responsibility where he will never have to bear the consequences is the height of hypocrisy. You seem hellbent on punishing the woman in a couple for having recreational sex, this harks back to a hard-line morality from the dark ages. You then complain that we're less sophisticated than the Dutch in these matters? Seriously?

SusieBlue · 30-04-2018 01:30PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Might I ask what your approach to sex for the rest of the month was?

Life getting in the way isnt good enough. Not unto another life getting in the way. I suggest life doesnt get in the way of a parachutists mindset

We used a second method of contraception for the rest of the month. I took every precaution I could.
If I had gotten pregnant it would absolutely have been through NO fault of my own.

What benefit do you see in forcing motherhood on an unwilling woman? Can you honestly say its in the best interests of the baby to do so, or is it just to punish the woman for being "careless"?

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 01:51PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

We used a second method of contraception for the rest of the month. I took every precaution I could.
If I had gotten pregnant it would absolutely have been through NO fault of my own.

Fair enough. However, the fact that failure rates for contraception greatly exceed the failure rate inherent in the method if properly and responsibly used points to but one conclusion

Abortion in order to sidestep the consequences of irresponsibility. That, when coming from the view that the life in the womb has immense worth

When you don't consider the life in the womb to have immense worth then you have no problem championing abortion no matter how irresponsible the person.

So, to test your view, please answer the following extreme hypothetical.

Woman in the UK decides to carry out an experiment to see how many times she can have unprotected sex without getting pregnant. Turns out it's 42. Great! Have the answer, now for that abortion.

That okay with you?

What benefit do you see in forcing motherhood on an unwilling woman? Can you honestly say its in the best interests of the baby to do so, or is it just to punish the woman for being "careless"?

I'm not for condoning irresponsibility in preventing unwanted pregnancy and I'm not for ducking the natural consequences that come with sex.

Since that cohort will, in my view, represent a significant number of the abortions that would follow a yes vote, and since I'm not given the option to support abortion in circumstances which aren't the subject of such selfishness/carelessness, I have no option but to vote no.

This isn't about forcing anyone (since they don't have to proceed with the pregnancy). This is about what I want this society to represent, using the means available to me to voice that: a vote.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 02:02PM

smacl wrote: »

Apart from yet another dubious analogy,

You don't get analogies. The point was that if it were their parachuting lives at stake, the same people who play fast and loose with unwanted pregnancy prevention would take a much different tack - whatever chute they were packing.

for a man to talk about the diminished responsibility where he will never have to bear the consequences is the height of hypocrisy.

Non sequitur.

You seem hellbent on punishing the woman in a couple for having recreational sex,

I just see the destruction of a human. To place that human on the alter of ..er.. recreation is a step to far for me. The Aztecs had a better motivation than that for fecks sake.

I understand your position and all the furrowed brow it must cause you. But it all rests on that: human or non.

SusieBlue · 30-04-2018 02:04PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fair enough. However, the fact that failure rates for contraception greatly exceed the failure rate inherent in the method if properly and responsibly used points to but one conclusion

Abortion in order to sidestep the consequences of irresponsibility. That, when coming from the view that the life in the womb has immense worth

When you don't consider the life in the womb to have immense worth then you have no problem championing abortion no matter how irresponsible the person.

I don't think children should be downplayed into "consequences". Consequences are forgetting an umbrella, or losing your keys.
Children are precious and should be wanted and cherished.

I don't understand the logic of you calling these people irresponsible, but then in the next sentence saying they should be made have a baby.
They can't even be trusted to take a tablet, or make a choice, but we do trust them with rearing another person for 18+ years? What?

I do consider their value.
I actually consider them SO valuable, that I don't think any child should be brought into the world unless its to willing, loving, wanting parents who will adore them.
I believe other people when they say they aren't in a position to offer a baby a good life, and I don't think its in anyones positions to force them otherwise.

So, to test your view, please answer the following extreme hypothetical.

Woman in the UK decides to carry out an experiment to see how many times she can have unprotected sex without getting pregnant. Turns out it's 42. Great! Have the answer, now for that abortion.
That okay with you?

Yes, absolutely, because someone that reckless and irresponsible has no business being a parent. They will undoubtedly do a rubbish job of it.

I'm not for condoning irresponsibility in preventing unwanted pregnancy and I'm not for ducking the natural consequences that come with sex.

Since that cohort will, in my view, represent a significant number of the abortions that would follow a yes vote, and since I'm not given the option to support abortion in circumstances which aren't the subject of such selfishness/carelessness, I have no option but to vote no.

This isn't about forcing anyone (since they don't have to proceed with the pregnancy). This is about what I want this society to represent, using the means available to me to voice that: a vote.

I think its really sad that you are willing to sacrifice the women who have health issues and babies with FFA, as well as the small amount of women who conceive through rape, as collateral damage, just to stop the type of abortion you "don't agree" with.

A small amount of people abuse every type of system we have - from medical cards, to social welfare, but it doesn't mean we get rid of those systems outright at the expense of those who really, genuinely, need it.
Its a pig headedness I just don't understand.

Its the height of selfishness to bring an unwanted baby into the word. Its certainly not in the best interests of the baby.

....... · 30-04-2018 02:18PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 02:23PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don't think children should be downplayed into "consequences". Consequences are forgetting an umbrella, or losing your keys.Children are precious and should be wanted and cherished.

It's not children that the cohort under discussion seek to avoid. It's consequences. And that's why I use the term.

I don't understand the logic of you calling these people irresponsible, but then in the next sentence saying they should be made have a baby.
They can't even be trusted to take a tablet, or make a choice, but we do trust them with rearing another person for 18+ years? What?

I've already discussed their not having to become parents if they can't bring themselves to face the consequences. Adoption is a route. I've already talked about incorporating those aspects of the Dutch model which reduces the level of the problem.

The logic has to do with the value of the life in the womb. I'm not proposing that children be borne and then subjected to a life of misery. This is the 21st century and we can do better than that.

I do consider their value.
I actually consider them SO valuable, that I don't think any child should be brought into the world unless its to willing, loving, wanting parents who will adore them.
I believe other people when they say they aren't in a position to offer a baby a good life, and I don't think its in anyones positions to force them otherwise.

So why not adoption? (please don't, for goodness sake, quote the law, as if the law can't be changed)

Yes, absolutely, because someone that reckless and irresponsible has no business being a parent. They will undoubtedly do a rubbish job of it.

What about the life in the womb. I take it you consider it fairly worthless, if given the option of bearing til delivery then adoption is still a fence too far for you. You appear uninterested in a society which goes the way of Holland in terms of it's prevention of the problem. You just want the problem to go away no matter what.

I think its really sad that you are willing to sacrifice the women who have health issues and babies with FFA, as well as the small amount of women who conceive through rape, as collateral damage, just to stop the type of abortion you "don't agree" with.

I suspect the vast majority of abortions will have nothing to do with rape or FFA. If those cases where I think an abortion has a place need to be sacrificed on the alter of where it has no place then that's the responsibility of those who set up the choice for me.

A small amount of people abuse every type of system we have - from medical cards, to social welfare, but it doesn't mean we get rid of those systems outright at the expense of those who really, genuinely, need it.
Its a pig headedness I just don't understand.

Lifestyle choice is not, for me, a worthy reason for killing human life. Put up with it, just a like folk put up with all sorts of unpleasant circumstances, bear the child and if then you still want out, adoption.

And before that, a society to does it's damndest to prevent the problem in the first place.

Its the height of selfishness to bring an unwanted baby into the word. Its certainly not in the best interests of the baby.

Ridiculous. Ask anyone whose mother could have aborted them, didn't and who was placed with loving adopted parents that question.

The selfishness is the unwillingness to put up with a pregnancy. Why? Because your worth it or something? This is Princess Theology for the secular world!

SusieBlue · 30-04-2018 02:24PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not children that the cohort under discussion seek to avoid. It's consequences. And that's why I use the term.

I've already discussed their not having to become parents if they can't bring themselves to face the consequences. Adoption is a route. I've already talked about incorporating those aspects of the Dutch model which reduces the level of the problem.

The logic has to do with the value of the life in the womb. I'm not proposing that children be borne and then subjected to a life of misery. This is the 21st century and we can do better than that.

So why not adoption?

What about the life in the womb. I take it you consider it fairly worthless, if given the option of bearing til delivery then adoption. You appear uninterested in a society which goes the way of Holland in terms of it's prevention of the problem. You just want the problem to go away no matter what.

I suspect the vast majority of abortions will have nothing to do with rape or FFA. If those cases where I think an abortion has a place need to be sacrificed on the alter of where it has no place then that's the responsibility of those who set up the choice for me.

Lifestyle choice is not, for me, a worthy reason for killing human life. Put up with it, just a like folk put up with all sorts of unpleasant circumstances, bear the child and if then you still want out, adoption.

And before that, a society to does it's damndest to prevent the problem in the first place.

Ridiculous. Ask anyone whose mother could have aborted them, didn't and who was placed with loving adopted parents that question.

The selfishness is the unwillingness to put up with a pregnancy. Why? Because your worth it or something? This is Princess Theology for the secular world!

Do you actually know anything about how adoption in this country works? Anything at all?

....... · 30-04-2018 02:28PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 02:33PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thank you. Value of the life in the womb = 0

Your view of women are willfully irresponsibly critters who should be punished for enjoying sex by being forced to raise a child they didnt want is pretty disgusting tbh.

No one said they need raise the child. Bear it if you can't raise it.

You see - I place value on the life in the womb and certainly don't suppose the people who have a direct hand in it's existence absconding from the scene.

For all your handwringing, you really just want folk to be able to wash their hands of their actions. How does calling it recreational, for example, alter anything?

You also (rather handily for your vile viewpoint) ignore that the vast majority of abortions take place because of contraceptive failure, socio economic circumstances, rape, FFA, incest and threat to the life or health of the woman.

I'm of the view that the vast majority of abortions will have nothing to do with rape or FFA or genuine threat to life

It'll be lifestyle. Human life at the cost of lifestyle. If you see life that way then there is nothing incongruous about my position. Nor, yours, if you view life in the womb that way.

Just because YOU dont like SOME abortions you are willing to condemn thousands of women to continue with the health and life risks that the 8th brings.

See above. I don't see these heavily promoted cases as forming anything but a fraction of the total of abortions.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 02:34PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Could you recap briefly?

Don't cite laws that can be changed.

Do take account of the fact that there was demand before the Hague Convention.

Do tell me if people in other European countries could adopt Irish kids

SusieBlue · 30-04-2018 02:40PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you recap briefly?

Don't cite laws that can be changed.

Do take account of the fact that there was demand before the Hague Convention

We don't have adoption in Ireland, we have long term foster care.
The most recent statistics we have (2016) shows that only 5 newborn infants were adopted that year.

Due to advances in fertility treatments (specifically clomid & IVF), couples who struggle to conceive now have a plethora of options before they arrive at adoption.
The average sized family is getting smaller every year, and many couples are choosing not to have children at all.
On top of that, for the few who do wish to adopt, the process takes years (because the system favours keeping the children in state care) and is extremely emotionally and financially draining.
So those that do want to adopt, do so internationally from countries such as Vietnam and Russia.

Now - as for the woman giving the baby up for adoption.
In order to give up her parental rights, she must declare herself an unfit parent. This is almost impossible to do.
If she does manage to do that, she must also surrender any older children she might have, or any children she might have in the future.
And well all know the adoption statistics for older children - they end up stuck in the system, left behind. Adoptive parents want babies and toddlers, its sad but true.
Up until last year, it was illegal for married people to have their children put up for adoption.

If you want to stop 4k abortions every year, you need to find 4k adults willing to take on these children.
That simply won't happen.
There has been no appetite for adoption in Ireland since the exporting mother & baby homes closed.
So really what you'd be doing is adding another 4k children to the foster care system. A system currently crushing under the pressure of having over 6k children in its care.
Which is HARDLY in their best interests. And simply not a feasible solution at all.

And you can talk about changing laws, but the Pro-Life side have had 35 years since the 8th was put in place to improve the legal issues.
They haven't, because they don't care. Born at all costs, is all they care about.

And regardless, changing the law is of no help to an Irish woman having a crisis right now, today.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 02:40PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Do you actually know anything about how adoption in this country works? Anything at all?

Work? Or can be made work?

SusieBlue · 30-04-2018 02:43PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Work? Or can be made work?

How it can be made work in the future is of zero help to someone who is having a crisis right now.
And it is also of no help to someone who cannot or will not gestate a pregnancy.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 02:59PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

We don't have adoption in Ireland, we have long term foster care.
The most recent statistics we have (2016) shows that only 5 newborn infants were adopted that year.

Yet when I looked at data about demand from Russia, Vietnam and the like (before those options closed down) it ran into thousands.

Could it be that demand is a function of the hurdles one feel one must surmount? Travel to Russia or Vietnam? What about promoting adoption positively and finding ways to smooth the path (without lowering standard for prospective adopters)

Due to advances in fertility treatments (specifically clomid & IVF), couples who struggle to conceive now have a plethora of options before they arrive at adoption.

Like the well-heeled couple I know who spend €75K on the process before striking gold?

What about other countries adopting from us. I mean, we are surrounded by countries for whom abortion is the go to. You mean they have a surplus? I doubt it somehow.

On top of that, for the few who do wish to adopt, the process takes years (because the system favours keeping the children in state care) and is extremely emotionally and financially draining

You mean it's not possible to change the system? We can introduce abortion but we can't sort out adoption?

Now - as for the woman giving the baby up for adoption.
In order to give up her parental rights, she must declare herself an unfit parent. This is almost impossible to do.

You propose that she can obtain an abortion on the grounds of mental unhealth, yet she can't cite the same in handing the kid up for adoption? Really?

Change The Law. Is that beyond anyones ability here?

If she does manage to do that, she must also surrender any older children she might have, or any children she might have in the future.

Change The Law.

And well all know the adoption statistics for older children - they end up stuck in the system, left behind. Adoptive parents want babies and toddlers, its sad but true.

So give 'em toddlers

If you want to stop 4k adoptions every year, you need to find 4k adults willing to take on these children. That simply won't happen.

If you want to stop 4k abortions every year you take a trip to Holland and find out what the feck they are doing that we are not (shy of abortion)

Then you change the adoption scene here to cut out the hurdles. You've only got to figure out how to find good-enough parents, that's all anyone has. The alternative is the rubbish bin.

There has been no appetite for adoption in Ireland since the exporting mother & baby homes closed. So really what you'd be doing is adding another 4k children to the foster care system. Which is HARDLY in their best interests. And simply not a feasible solution at all.
And you can talk about changing laws, but the Pro-Life side have had 35 years since the 8th was put in place to improve the legal issues.
They haven't, because they don't care. Born at all costs, is all they care about.

You're kidding. You mean Yes are entitled to sit on their fannies for the last 35 years unless they obtain choice. They need not be interested in solutions that improve the lot of people in crisis pregnancies.

This is societies problem, not no or yes-ers.

Dutch systems, adoption , limited abortion is complex, messy and expensive.

Abortion is cheap and simple.

And this is Ireland/

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 03:02PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

How it can be made work in the future is of zero help to someone who is having a crisis right now.
And it is also of no help to someone who cannot or will not gestate a pregnancy.

Time to get cracking so. You don't really suppose we ought institute abortion on demand because we are in a hurry?

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 04:20PM

I wonder how many yes and no votes would rely on the lack of options, shy of abortion on demand, presented us.

If for no other reason, the politicians who created this option ought to be given a firm, unlubricated, middle finger

pitifulgod · 30-04-2018 04:24PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd encourage you to drive up Camden St at around 12 midnight on a Friday or Saturday night.

Then consider the phrase "trust women" (given men have long been eliminated from the discussion).

Talk about filtering things to suit your book!

That sounds extraordinarily misogynistic tbh. Irish people getting drunk is a reason to cease trusting women? Binge drinking culture which is a serious issue for both men and women in Ireland is not a case against being allowed to make medical decisions.

....... · 30-04-2018 04:34PM

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel · 30-04-2018 04:43PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder how many yes and no votes would rely on the lack of options, shy of abortion on demand, presented us.

If for no other reason, the politicians who created this option ought to be given a firm, unlubricated, middle finger

If you don't like the options being considered for the post referendum legislation, you can lobby to have them changed at any time.

But there can be no post referendum legislation of any kind without a Yes vote. A No vote is a vote for the status quo, and won't be interpreted as anything else.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 05:03PM

....... wrote: »

No - demand has gone down for the reasons SusieBlue already explained.

Is this so? My reading is that adoption rates plummeted once countries with a rich vein of children for adoption were excluded by the Hague convention. "Plummeted" was the word used.

Bear mind, that not insignificant demand was based on all kinds of hurdles - not least travel to far flung lands.

Might we suppose much increased demand here if children are Irish and the non-child protective obstacles removed.

You bet your life.

No countries are adopting from us.

Not for want of demand. Those for whom adoption is a sound option we will always have with us. And with abortion in lands all round us..

We have already signed up to the Hague Convention. People have other options so do not wish to have babies to give up for adoption. Nor should they have to, women are not incubators.

Babies are not trash. Around we go.

If a woman already has children she will lose them all if she declares herself an unfit mother and tries to give the most recent one up for adoption. Lose them to the foster care system.

Have her declare mental health and make that a ground for adoption. If she wont lose her existing kids in the event of an abortion she wont lose them for adoption.

The law on adoption has changed several times in recent years, all making it more restrictive.

Yet we can loosen laws on abortion no end. That is a will matter - not a jurisprudence one.

People dont want to adopt toddlers damaged by the foster care system.

So streamline. Baby born and straight to someone who'll cherish them.

This is all totally unrealistic. Women do not want adoption, it doesnt solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

What women-in-crisis (that most objective and considered states) want isn't the only item on the agenda.

All you need do is suppose life in the womb valuable and we all get a say

I truly despair. Abortion is not "cheap and simple" and your offensive throwaway terms really do nothing for your argument which at its core is simply that you want to punish women for having sex by forcing them to become parents.

Its cheaper than the alternative: care systems, law changing, referenda to find out what the nation ( as opposed to women) want . Free contrceptives, education, drink culture changes. That aint easy or. cheap. Pills are.

My concern is thousands of humans being thrown in the garbage. If it takes the polluter paying somewhat to avoid that then so be it.

Whilst I'm not at all immune to the individuals pain, the broader view (it wasnt anyone else who created this life afterall) means their pain must come second.

Simple as that

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 05:26PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

If you don't like the options being considered for the post referendum legislation, you can lobby to have them changed at any time.

I'd prefer a more nuanced referendum.

But there can be no post referendum legislation of any kind without a Yes vote. A No vote is a vote for the status quo, and won't be interpreted as anything else.

Too simplistic. I'm not against liberalising abortion / clarifying what ought be permitted so as there is no confusion. I don't agree with abortion on demand.

There will be plenty like me.

And so space to come at this again in less numbskull fashion.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 05:35PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

That sounds extraordinarily misogynistic tbh. Irish people getting drunk is a reason to cease trusting women? Binge drinking culture which is a serious issue for both men and women in Ireland is not a case against being allowed to make medical decisions.

Mens voices dont come into the yes side of the discussion - its all about womens choice.

So lets look.

Babies conceived after getting scuttered on camden street. It's these very same voices we should trust?

But for what? Sober, mature reflection? A willingness to perhaps man (!) up and take on a new level of responsibility now they've opened pandoras box?

Forgive me if their behavior has me suppose self interest and a desire to continue the party is uppermost on the mind.

Dont get me wrong in thinking the lads aint right up there with them , breathing a sigh of relief when the lasses take a trip to the uk. As I say though, YES isnt interested in men. Tactics insist men are excluded.

If we are going to focus on the most 'noble' of cases we ought also focus on the most "ignoble'. By 'we' I mean anyone who supposes life on the womb to have a value other than nil.

Delirium · 30-04-2018 05:41PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mens voices dont come into the yes side of the discussion - its all about womens choice.

So lets look.

Babies conceived after getting scuttered on camden street. Its these very same voices we should trust.

But for what? Sober, mature reflection? A willingness to perhaps man (!) up and take on a new level of responsibility now they've opened pandoras box?

Forgive me if their behavior has me suppose self interest and a desire to continue the party isnt uppermost on the mind.

Dont get me wrong in thinking the lads aint right up with them , breathing a sigh of relief when the lasses take a trip to the uk. As I say though, YES isnt interested in men. Tactics insist they cant be

If they're such self-interested irresponsible folk, why is it a good idea that they be forced into parenthood?

NuMarvel · 30-04-2018 06:02PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd prefer a more nuanced referendum.

Too simplistic. I'm not against liberalising abortion / clarifying what ought be permitted so as there is no confusion. I don't agree with abortion on demand.

There will be plenty like me.

And so space to come at this again in less numbskull fashion.

You can liberalise/change/clarify what ought to be permitted in legislation. You can't do that in the constitution, not properly at any rate, no matter how nuanced you'd like it to be.

This has been covered numerous times already; the constitution isn't the place for complex issues and the grounds for abortion, especially in hard cases like FFA or rape, are complex.

But if you think it can, then tell us how you'd do it; what alternative text would you like to see instead?

pitifulgod · 30-04-2018 06:14PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mens voices dont come into the yes side of the discussion - its all about womens choice.

So lets look.

Babies conceived after getting scuttered on camden street. It's these very same voices we should trust?

But for what? Sober, mature reflection? A willingness to perhaps man (!) up and take on a new level of responsibility now they've opened pandoras box?

Forgive me if their behavior has me suppose self interest and a desire to continue the party is uppermost on the mind.

Dont get me wrong in thinking the lads aint right up there with them , breathing a sigh of relief when the lasses take a trip to the uk. As I say though, YES isnt interested in men. Tactics insist men are excluded.

If we are going to focus on the most 'noble' of cases we ought also focus on the most "ignoble'. By 'we' I mean anyone who supposes life on the womb to have a value other than nil.

Yep continuing to sound incredibly judgmental. Your idea is to force women into pregnancies against their wishes. That's awful.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 06:32PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

You can liberalise/change/clarify what ought to be permitted in legislation. You can't do that in the constitution, not properly at any rate, no matter how nuanced you'd like it to be.

This has been covered numerous times already; the constitution isn't the place for complex issues and the grounds for abortion, especially in hard cases like FFA or rape, are complex.

But if you think it can, then tell us how you'd do it; what alternative text would you like to see instead?

I watched the Late Late show last Friday. One of the No side was pretty restrictive: no abortion under any circumstances.

Someone earlier on here approved of abortion in a situation where someone had unprotected intercourse simply to see how long it would take her to get pregnant (thereafter an abortion).

They are, to my mind, extreme ends of the spectrum. I imagine the actual spectrum to be far more normally distributed. The vast bulk of people can't envisage a women whose foetus has no skull being forced to travel to England for an abortion. Neither can they condone a situation where abortion will be used as a backup contraceptive by people whose responsibility in the proper use of contraceptives is patchy to say the least.

Whichever way the vote goes, the vast proportion of the populations views will have been poorly represented I feel. They will have been forced to chose between extremes, neither of which represents anything close to where their own thinking lies.

It's not for me to conjure up a form of words: I pay my taxes and suppose the state in a position, not only to come up with a better set of options (even if that means a number of referenda to tease things out), but to find better ways to prevent this problem happening in the first place.

I shouldn't be surprised at Ireland: we aren't a sophisticated modern society, for all the outward trappings of same. But it's still a disappointment that we go straight to hammer to crack a nut without so much as a by-your-leave in the direction of looking at this sensitively and creatively.

I have no love of Catholic Ireland past. It was experienced by me as an awful thing. That there be no restraint put on our now being like kids in a secular sweetshop is both disappointing and to be expected.

Perhaps it simply can't be different.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 06:35PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

Yep continuing to sound incredibly judgmental.

You are starting to sound incredibly laissez-faire. Do what the feck you like and there ought be no consequences at all.

Let me ask you: value of the life in the womb. Let 0 = no intrinsic internal value at all and 10 = as valuable as a baby born.

You don't seem to understand well. Women aren't forced into pregnancies. They (the cohort under discussion) get into them under own steam. They aren't forced to continue them - they have options to terminate. The question is whether we, as a society, are willing to aid and abett. Or whether we prize life in the womb more than we prize women getting themselves into this position having to bear some consequence for the predicament they got themselves into in sustaining a pregnancy (in the event they chose/cannot avail of the options available to terminate it.

We, a society, can stand for our own values. The individual doesn't have to agree with it.

pitifulgod · 30-04-2018 06:38PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are starting to sound incredibly laissez-faire. Do what the feck you like and there ought be no consequences at all.

Let me ask you: value of the life in the womb. Let 0 = no intrinsic internal value at all and 10 = as valuable as a baby born.

I don't think a woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will. I think ultimately a woman's decision should be her own rather than the state's. The 8th amendment has caused plenty of damage since it first came about and doesn't women's interests first.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments