Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

SusieBlue · 30-04-2018 06:41PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

You are misrepresenting what I said to suit your own agenda.

What you asked was would I be ok with someone who had unprotected sex 42 times (or something like that) before getting pregnant having an abortion.

I said yes because someone that irresponsible and reckless shouldn’t be forced into parenthood. Cause they sound so immature they’d make awful parents.

Which I stand by.

And as an aside, your scenario was ridiculous.
I don’t doubt that there are careless women out there but I highly doubt there are hoards of women playing Russian roulette with their fertility, riding all around them just to see how long it takes to get pregnant as some sort of warped experiment.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 06:44PM

Delirium wrote: »

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

No one if forcing them into anything. They are not being enabled to abort is not the same as being forced into parenthood.

Could you recalibrate and repost - nothing against you, except that I'm a bit tired of the same inaccurate language.

pitifulgod · 30-04-2018 06:48PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

No one if forcing them into anything. They are not being enabled to abort is not the same as being forced into parenthood.

Could you recalibrate and repost - nothing against you, except that I'm a bit tired of the same inaccurate language.

You do realise that restrictive abortion regimes actually result in later abortions? So second trimester abortions happen more as a direct result of the eighth. So the only people who are prevented from having abortions are those who can't travel for whatever reason, those who have them will generally have them later. So it seems like a pretty bad solution to prevent abortions in Ireland when Irish citizens will have them regardless.

Delirium · 30-04-2018 06:57PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

No one if forcing them into anything. They are not being enabled to abort is not the same as being forced into parenthood.

Could you recalibrate and repost - nothing against you, except that I'm a bit tired of the same inaccurate language.

Please explain how someone can give birth to a child and not be a biological parent.

robarmstrong · 30-04-2018 07:00PM

Delirium wrote: »

Please explain how someone can give birth to a child and not be a biological parent.

I'm assuming via IVF and a surrogate.

Still though, "nobody is forcing them into parenthood" but denying them access to abortion is essentially forcing them into parenthood considering the horrific state of adoption in Ireland.

Delirium · 30-04-2018 07:09PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

I'm assuming via IVF and a surrogate.

Still though, "nobody is forcing them into parenthood" but denying them access to abortion is essentially forcing them into parenthood considering the horrific state of adoption in Ireland.

Possible but unlikely in the context of what anti has been discussing, i.e. drunken sex leads to pregnancy but denying access to abortion isn't forcing parenthood on anyone.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 07:11PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

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.

It doesnt because it grants equal rights. There are no firsts in equal.

The lives saved by it far exceed any damage done by it.

You are only correct in your view if you assign no or infinitely small intrinsic (i.e. not dependent on the mothers view of it) worth to the life in the womb.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 07:13PM

Delirium wrote: »

Please explain how someone can give birth to a child and not be a biological parent.

The word under discussion was force. Nobody is forcing anyone.

robarmstrong · 30-04-2018 07:14PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The word under discussion was force. Nobody is forcing anyone.

Are you denying access to safe and legal abortion for women who don't want to continue their pregnancies here?

Delirium · 30-04-2018 07:17PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The word under discussion was force. Nobody is forcing anyone.

Please elaborate. How is removing options not forcing a person to a particular outcome?

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 07:18PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

You do realise that restrictive abortion regimes actually result in later abortions? So second trimester abortions happen more as a direct result of the eighth. So the only people who are prevented from having abortions are those who can't travel for whatever reason, those who have them will generally have them later. So it seems like a pretty bad solution to prevent abortions in Ireland when Irish citizens will have them regardless.

My original point isn't altered by this.

antiskeptic · 30-04-2018 07:21PM

Delirium wrote: »

Please elaborate. How is removing options not forcing a person to a particular outcome?

Abortion services are freely available. You might generate some outlier situation but I'm not really discussing the far reaches of things.

If you want an abortion you can have one.

robarmstrong · 30-04-2018 07:23PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abortion services are freely available. You might generate some outlier situation but I'm not really discussing the far reaches of things.

If you want an abortion you can have one.

Of course you can, just not in this country.

Delirium · 30-04-2018 07:24PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abortion services are freely available. You might generate some outlier situation but I'm not really discussing the far reaches of things.

If you want an abortion you can have one.

Abortion currently carries a 14 year prison sentence.

Care to try again?

30-04-2018 08:04PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abortion services are freely available. You might generate some outlier situation but I'm not really discussing the far reaches of things.

If you want an abortion you can have one.

In Ireland?

No hence the repeal campaign as one reason including health care.

NuMarvel · 30-04-2018 08:28PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

They have found a better way to prevent problems happening in the first place; that's what we're voting on. This was considered by the Assembly, the Oireachtas Committee and the current Attorney General; this was the option they could come up with. And it reflects the thinking of the attorney general back in 83 who said this matter was too complex for the Constitution.

If you say there is another way, then yes it is up to you to come up with some form of words. That you can't should reinforce that this isn't as simple as you are tying to make out.

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 08:26AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Of course you can, just not in this country.

Precisely.

To sum up, a person isn't being forced to have an abortion.

But let's suppose there were no abortion services of any description anywhere. The person is now forced to carry to term.

What of it? We would have a situation where a person engaged in an activity which they know may result in a consequence from which they cannot escape. Life is littered with activities which we can engage in which bring consequences from which we cannot escape.

The root of the problem lies in our activity.

The question then is whether or not society ought provide the closest to a 100% way out or not from consequences arising from our own activity, consequences that are the result of our own choices and responsibility.

There are cases where it does. There are cases where it doesn't.

Various arguments have been made to support the notion of society providing a way out of pregnancy. They range from the equivalent of removing a wart to the (dubious) sparing the child his unsuitable parents, by killing it.

All hinges on how you view the life in the womb. If that life has zero value then no more than a wart need it be seen as. In that case, of course, remove it, providing the cost/benefit lies within guidelines applicable to any medical treatment.

If that life has equal value then of course refuse to provide such services. In this latter case, the YES reasoning fails:

- that people are "forced" to travel is neither here nor there.
- that people chose to take pills outside medical supervision is neither here nor there.
- that people are "forced" to carry to term is neither here nor there.
- that the child might not have it's natural parents and be placed in care, is neither here nor there

There are things you can do to alleviate the suffering of the mother in these cases, there are things you can do to prevent the problem in the first place, but the ground zero point, the point at which the YES argument is neither here nor there, is equal right to life. Society will go so far, but it needn't place your interest above the interest of the life in your womb - not least because you brought that situation about yourself.

If you equate life in the womb as having a worth of zero then much of what you say follows on logically. Ditto, what I say.

....... · 01-05-2018 08:30AM

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong · 01-05-2018 08:33AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Precisely.

To sum up, a person isn't being forced to have an abortion.

Ignoring the rest of the drivel.

A woman in Ireland has two choices (realistically only one depending on financial circumstances) - be forced into carrying the unwanted pregnancy full-term or be forced to go abroad to have an abortion.

It really is that simple and you consistently seem to fail to understand that, might be down to how you view women, seeing your previous posts regarding them.

....... · 01-05-2018 08:33AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 08:38AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what intrinsic value does it have? That is, value not assigned to it by society at large.

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 08:41AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Ignoring the rest of the drivel.

A woman in Ireland has two choices (realistically only one depending on financial circumstances) - be forced into carrying the unwanted pregnancy full-term or be forced to go abroad to have an abortion.

It really is that simple and you consistently seem to fail to understand that, might be down to how you view women, seeing your previous posts regarding them.

You can say a person is forced to pay taxes. The emotive power of the word "force" in that circumstance swings away from the person and to the state. Force is a simple consequence of higher value being placed on the idea you pay your taxes.

Ditto here - if you'd read the drivel. The life in the womb, if considered equal, removes the emotive power of "force" from your pro-mother contention.

robarmstrong · 01-05-2018 08:47AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can say a person is forced to pay taxes. The emotive power of the word "force" in that circumstance swings away from the person and to the state. Force is a simple consequence of higher value being placed on the idea you pay your taxes.

Ditto here - if you'd read the drivel. The life in the womb, if considered equal, removes the emotive power of "force" from your pro-mother contention.

You can say a woman is forced out of her own country to seek a medical procedure that she should have access to already but doesn't due to an archaic law.

No, it doesn't remove any emotive power. There is no emotive power of "force" from my contention, it is fact. By reducing someone's options to something they are being forced into a particular outcome. You can't or won't grasp it so it's pointless discussing it with you, you just cannot comprehend that women are forced into giving birth in Ireland.

I've gotten quite bored of you, I was hoping for an intelligent discussion but it seems all I've gotten is a heap-load of misogynistic views along with deflection. Such a shame.

....... · 01-05-2018 08:48AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 08:55AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As ever, the starting point is value on life in the womb. If society considers it equal then the person engaging in life creating activity is facing a life and death situation:

Life, because it is being brought into the world and it is wanted

Death, because it is being brought into the world and results in the (possible) death of hopes, dreams, career, finances and yes, the desire to live a carefree life.

If the latter, then every precaution ought be taken to prevent it. Talk of pills dropping down plugholes and the right to recreation doesn't cut it You approach it as you would approach any situation involving these consequences.

There is a cohort who engage in the activity and whose precautions fall far short of those appropriate to the seriousness of the activity.

This cannot be denied.

You wish to shame and punish people who had sex and didnt bother with contraception or were flaky about it or didnt double up or whatever ridiculous standard you wish to apply.

All the while the underlying meaning here is that you want to weaponise babies to punish people with them. You want to categorise "good" abortions versus "bad" abortions.

Ive already extensively explained the inconsistency in this line of thinking yet here you are persisting in referring to the "cohort under discussion" yet again.

Its pretty simple, you can word salad around it as much as you like, but you are engaging in slut shaming with your constant reference to "the cohort under discussion" - trying to dress it up with your pseudo intellectual phrasing doesnt hide your intention.

Not one point you have raised is worthy of retaining the 8th Amendment. Not one.

All I say rests on the decision that life in the womb is as valuable as any other life. The aim isn't to punish or shame or any of the other mish mash of ideas you have going there.

The aim is to vindicate the value of life in the womb. This isn't achieved by killing it.

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 09:01AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I understand it's hard to put a figure on it. So I'll ask you a question that gives an indication of where you stand in principle.

Two couples place a €5 bet to see which couple can conceive a child the quickest. I know such a scenario is very unlikely but let's suppose it happens.

Would you support the right of a couple of engage in such an activity and to avail of abortion on demand?

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 09:02AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

I've gotten quite bored of you

The feeling doesn't lack mutuality. Let us leave it at that so.

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 09:17AM

Nell McCafferty: Irish journalist, playwright, civil rights campaigner and feminist.

Unbeknownst to herself, perhaps, she's talking of the Dutch approach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_qiTwhsbEk

....... · 01-05-2018 09:28AM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 01-05-2018 09:31AM

This post has been deleted.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments