Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 12:35PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I think it’s clear that the value someone will hold on a pregnancy will depend on whether the pregnancy is wanted, or unplanned, or a risk to the mothers life, or any of the other variables that can possibly occur

Which is anywhere between zero and infinity (where infinity means sacrificing own life for another)

If you can’t understand that I can’t help you understand any further.

I understand what the mother can chose. But that's not intrinsic value. Intrinsice value isn't a matter of an individuals opinion. It's a matter of the value society places on it (taking the discussion outside whether God exists or not).

I will repeat: I am ok with a woman terminating a pre 12 week pregnancy for any reason she feels is necessary.

Since you support a mother attaching zero value to her baby and also support society holding the view that the life in the womb has zero intrinsic value, you can't but hold your own view to be that the life in the womb has zero intrinsic value.

SusieBlue · 01-05-2018 12:38PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Im no returning to the debate but a quick question.

What if the government legislated for 24 weeks, which they would be free to do either now or later?

I wouldn’t support unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks. I would only support in cases of FFA or threat to the life of the mother.
They aren’t going to legislate for unrestricred up to 24 weeks so we don’t have to worry about that.

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 12:47PM

antiskeptic wrote:

Since you support a mother attaching zero value to her baby and also support society holding the view that the life in the womb has zero intrinsic value, you can't but hold your own view to be that the life in the womb has zero intrinsic value.

The way a YES vote (leading to unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks) works is as follows:

1. By default, every life in every womb up to 12 weeks is to be considered by society as having zero value.

2. Because the life in the womb is considered to have zero value by default, it can be destroyed for any and every reason (once fig leaf hurdles have been overcome).

3. If, however, an individual mother assigns value to the life in the womb, then society will respond to that member of society by agreeing with her evaluation.

As a logic statement:

Society's default value for life in the womb is zero unless a pregnant member of society decides otherwise - in which case society will roll in with that new value, in that individual case.

....... · 01-05-2018 01:43PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 03:47PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not, as it happens, I received inspiration from the YES campaign. You see, YES (and NO) are campaigning for hearts & minds values. The way in which is done is to examine values on both sides of the equation AND set one above the other so as to arrive at the conclusion "abortion is warranted in this case".

Take the case of pregnancy, through rape, of a minor:

- on the girls side you have various values attaching to her predicament. There is the value of the person in crisis being a minor. There is value in the fact she was raped (as opposed to contributing to the situation by way of choices she made)

- on the babies side you have value. The sense that life in the womb has some value. This is true whether the person considering the situation is an undecided or whether a firm YES but needing a basis to justify their position.

The values are placed on a seesaw and the seesaw falls according to the weight the individual has been convinced to assign to each one.

Take the case of FFA's

- on the womans side you have trauma.

- on the babies side you have life-value diminished by the fact that the child might not even make the birth, and if it does, it will die soon afterwards. It's not the fullest-fledged life being considered here.

Again we have value on a see-saw. The woman's on one side and the diminished value of the baby on the other side.

In both cases the electorate are being encouraged to engage in a value comparison, (the extreme cases being focused upon in order to set the electorate on the road to applying these value assessments on a wider set of circumstances, ones which don't see the woman's side as heavily weighed down)

So, we have a value system for both mother and baby and a see saw to place them onto. On the mothers side, values increase as you remove responsibility, selfishness, etc. from the situation (e.g. the child rape) and decrease as you add responsibility, selfishness, etc onto her situation. Similarly, the baby's value increases as it approaches full-life and decreases as it moves away from full life (whether being born with a FFA or early stage pregnancy)

The construct posed earlier see enormous amount irresponsibility, selfishness, culpability, cynicism, etc placed upon the mother. The value on her side of the see saw diminishes towards zero.

-

The reason why I conclude zero value for the baby being the default? The baby, to be abortable, no matter how vanishingly small the value on the mother's side, can't be above zero. If it is, there is the possibility that the scale would go the other way.

But you can't have the scale go the other way. It is unrestricted abortion we want.

It doesn't matter whether the construct ever comes about. What matters is that there can be no situation in which the scale are tipped the other way. Else, the abortion cannot be unrestricted.

I think its irrelevant what the value is. So long as its less than the womans right to bodily autonomy. Thats the important bit.

My very point. Zero ensures it is less. It's the only way to ensure it is less in all circumstances.

Why are you so hung up on a zero value being assigned to a fetus?

To focus hearts & minds on what is actually taking place - once you look past the extreme outliers constantly being pushed forth.

You see, if the YES side focused on the bulk of what will constitute abortions, they'd be on a much stickier wicket. People intrinsically understand things like contribution, responsibility, selfishness, carelessness.

The YES campaign knows this. And so they keep on pushing cases where contribution, responsibility, selfishness and carelessness are as diminished as they possibly can be.

Max value mother / Min value baby. Drive That Message Home. Keep everyone looking the way we need them to look.

It ain't complicated!

....... · 01-05-2018 03:59PM

This post has been deleted.

uck51js9zml2yt · 01-05-2018 05:10PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I wouldn’t support unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks. I would only support in cases of FFA or threat to the life of the mother.
They aren’t going to legislate for unrestricred up to 24 weeks so we don’t have to worry about that.

You're more trusting of politicians than I am.
Maybe you know more than I do!

Whose to say a future government won't bring in 24 weeks?

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 05:15PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And the reason why this cohort won't be focused on to the same degree as raped minors and FFA's is because the electorate recognizes the vast majority of this cohort can't rely on failure of the contraceptive itself. Rather, failure to use the contraceptive correctly is the reason for the pregnancy.

You simply won't get away with arguing degrees of irresponsibility and carelessness - for we, the electorate, are all irresponsible and careless ourselves

And to the degree carelessness and irresponsibility are involved - remembering that we are not starting out with a relatively valueless consequence here - doth the YES argument weaken.

Which is why YES doesn't focus on contraceptive failure anywhere near as much as the heavy value cases.

Then there will be FFAs, rape victims, incest victims, people whose life or health is at (clear and significant) risk from the pregnancy

I've included the words "clear and significant" here - to differentiate from that which is less than clear and not so significant.

people for whom something happened AFTER they got pregnant that means they dont want to continue the pregnancy, etc

Naturally, there is increasing vagueness as we progress. And we would find that as we progress, the value balance will move more and more away from the mother's side of the see saw. Carelessness, selfishness ("because I and all I desire in life are worth it"), irresponsibility and all the rest of what constitutes mankind at its worst) will form an increasing proportion of the motivation for an abortion.

You have heard of the normally distributed curve? Well the noble and the ignoble will lies at both ends, the bulk will be humdrum, everyday human frailty.

Which is why YES needs to diminish the baby value towards zero as they go. The mother's case in these cases will tend to hold less and less water in the eyes of the electorate. Nothing more can be wrung from her, so the focus must shift to the baby.

I have explained all this to you already, several times. You cannot or will not accept that the bulk of abortions do not comprise of your definition of carelessness.

You haven't split things out at all. We don't know how many belong to, let's call it, the heavyweight cases (FFA, rape, incest, serious threat to health). I'd warrant miniscule quantities.

We already know that carelessness will be implicate in the majority of failure of contraceptives (given the contraceptives themselves are very reliable). In varying degrees this carelessness of course, but certainly implicit in the vast majority of failures. This is a problematic category for YES, demonstrated by the lack of focus on it by the YES campaign.

You haven't begun to deal with folk for whom this is a lifestyle inconvenience. They engage in recreation forgetting that it's also creation - but when the results come round, no thanks! Very little intrinsic value to be had on the mothers side so the way to deal with it is to diminish the baby value side.

Not sentient, bunch of cells, foetus (when we don't want it) not baby (when we do)

There is no carelessness when contraception fails.

Every now and then someone steps over into the ridiculous. Such a time is this.

Im not here to repeat myself endlessly to you. Its not that you dont understand, its that you refuse to understand. You continue to make the same incorrect assertions over and over despite being corrected. Willful ignorance.

The point was to highlight the mechanism at work: value balance and how to:

-divert the gaze of the undecided (and own self) in the direction of extremes. Don't focus on the cases that involve own culpability.

- when you can't avoid own culpability and the intrinsic value of your case falters, diminish the value of the baby.

- point the finger everywhere but at yourself. Deny, Deny, Deny.

I mean, it's classic!

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 05:50PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

You're more trusting of politicians than I am.
Maybe you know more than I do!

Whose to say a future government won't bring in 24 weeks?

Yeah, I thought there was a touch of the old hostage to fortune when I read that.

I mean, politicians brought in a repeal referendum because of their own personal convictions? :pac:

NuMarvel · 01-05-2018 05:53PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Whose to say a future government won't bring in 24 weeks?

The people, if they don't want it to happen. The same way that government policy on water charges, ownership of the new maternity hospital, and changes to medical cards for the over 70s were all overturned due to public pressure.

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 05:59PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The people, if they don't want it to happen. The same way that government policy on water charges, ownership of the new maternity hospital, and changes to medical cards for the over 70s were all overturned due to public pressure.

Snigger

I think you ought to exclude cases where self-interest or money lies at the heart of things.

I don't recall the will of the people having much effect on the bailout or the introduction of the USC.

You're threading on thin ice here NM

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 06:10PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The people, if they don't want it to happen. The same way that government policy on water charges, ownership of the new maternity hospital, and changes to medical cards for the over 70s were all overturned due to public pressure.

All need happen, a few years down the line, is that someone dies at week 20. It won't matter that it wasn't any restriction imposed by the law which caused it - it can be Savita all over again.

And they'll be off.

Assuming you're still active on boards at that point, I will say I told you so.

Delirium · 01-05-2018 06:15PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

All need happen, a few years down the line, is that someone dies at week 20. It won't matter that it wasn't any restriction imposed by the law which caused it - it can be Savita all over again.

And they'll be off.

So you're suggesting that someone will die under the proposed law and there'll be moves to allow abortion on request up to 20 weeks?

The law would allow for an abortion at 20 weeks where there is a threat to life (and pretty sure current law does too).

NuMarvel · 01-05-2018 06:29PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Snigger

Talk about juvenile. :rolleyes:

antiskeptic · 01-05-2018 06:31PM

Delirium wrote: »

So you're suggesting that someone will die under the proposed law and there'll be moves to allow abortion on request up to 20 weeks?

The law would allow for an abortion at 20 weeks where there is a threat to life (and pretty sure current law does too).

Before answering, can I take it you agree that the law didn't prevent an abortion in Savita's case?

Delirium · 01-05-2018 06:51PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Before answering, can I take it you agree that the law didn't prevent an abortion in Savita's case?

No. I don't agree with that.

uck51js9zml2yt · 01-05-2018 08:23PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The people, if they don't want it to happen. The same way that government policy on water charges, ownership of the new maternity hospital, and changes to medical cards for the over 70s were all overturned due to public pressure.

This government gave into protests. You're assuming that a government in 5, 10, 20 years will do the same.

I never thought you were naive.

SusieBlue · 01-05-2018 08:44PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

You're more trusting of politicians than I am.
Maybe you know more than I do!

Whose to say a future government won't bring in 24 weeks?

I actually hate this argument. It’s the very argument that got us into this sorry state.

If, in the future, our society lobby’s and campaigns for less restrictive laws, and the government decides to legislate in favour it, that will be a reflection of what that society wants and needs.

Tying ourselves in knots trying to prevent something that our nation might want in the future is very wrong and should not be encouraged.

If the 8th was never put in, abortion would have remained illegal but we could have legislated for abortion over the last couple of years without needing this big expensive referendum.

Laws and legislation are a reflection of the status quo at that time and who are to deny a future society that.

NuMarvel · 01-05-2018 08:47PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

This government gave into protests. You're assuming that a government in 5, 10, 20 years will do the same.

I never thought you were naive.

I see no basis for believing that future governments wouldn't do the same, considering governments only have their jobs because of the public in the first place. And you obviously think the same if the best counter argument you have is name calling.

uck51js9zml2yt · 01-05-2018 09:11PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I see no basis for believing that future governments wouldn't do the same, considering governments only have their jobs because of the public in the first place. And you obviously think the same if the best counter argument you have is name calling.

I was listening to a broadcast a few months ago on the rise of Hitler where they were showing old interviews of former politicians.

The German government and people knew what he was and what he could do but thought they could control him.

The former politicians words were quiet sobering ...he said "We were wrong"

NuMarvel · 01-05-2018 09:27PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I was listening to a broadcast a few months ago on the rise of Hitler where they were showing old interviews of former politicians.

The German government and people knew what he was and what he could do but thought they could control him.

The former politicians words were quiet sobering ...he said "We were wrong"

godwins-law-i-have-an-opinion-so-did-hitler-attempting-27496543.png

uck51js9zml2yt · 01-05-2018 10:35PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Do you make a habit of ignoring the point much?. No wonder I gave up in this thread!

01-05-2018 10:48PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I was listening to a broadcast a few months ago on the rise of Hitler where they were showing old interviews of former politicians.

The German government and people knew what he was and what he could do but thought they could control him.

The former politicians words were quiet sobering ...he said "We were wrong"

Strangely enough only one side in the repeal debate have links to neo nazi organisations, maybe their just following orders?

Cabaal · 02-05-2018 08:27AM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

This government gave into protests.

You know the 8th only exists because the government gave into extremely well funded political lobbying from religious Conservative groups right?

A far more concerning thing then the government actually listening to the public that elect them.

I would hope that the government listens to what the majority of the public wants that elected them, that's democracy.

At the end of the day there is appitite for change on the 8th and the government would have been negligent to ignore this, just as if they ignored the marriage ref demand.

Sadly many on the no side including some TDs seem to hate democracy when the view goes against what they want... More then a little worrying.

antiskeptic · 02-05-2018 10:19AM

Cabaal wrote: »

You know the 8th only exists because the government gave into extremely well funded political lobbying from religious Conservative groups right?

A far more concerning thing then the government actually listening to the public that elect them.

I would hope that the government listens to what the majority of the public wants that elected them, that's democracy.

At the end of the day there is appitite for change on the 8th and the government would have been negligent to ignore this, just as if they ignored the marriage ref demand.

Sadly many on the no side including some TDs seem to hate democracy when the view goes against what they want... More then a little worrying.

Sometimes governents don't listen to the 'will of the people' (bail out, usc, water for an age). It's also democracy.

One man's democratic will of the people is another man's rollover.

Thereafter its which lobby can best manipulate the undecided. For both sides do manipulate: be it the 1 on 5 or the focus on rape and ffa's.

That's democracy too

uck51js9zml2yt · 02-05-2018 03:34PM

Cabaal wrote: »

You know the 8th only exists because the government gave into extremely well funded political lobbying from religious Conservative groups right?

A far more concerning thing then the government actually listening to the public that elect them.

I would hope that the government listens to what the majority of the public wants that elected them, that's democracy.

At the end of the day there is appitite for change on the 8th and the government would have been negligent to ignore this, just as if they ignored the marriage ref demand.

Sadly many on the no side including some TDs seem to hate democracy when the view goes against what they want... More then a little worrying.

I've no problems with democracy. I do have a problem with mob rule.
We elect a government and give them powers to govern and legislate.
We don't like the legislation so we get a mob down O'Connell Street and should loudly.
The biggest mistake they made was backing down on the water charges ( but it's a different debate).
The thought that we can repeal the 8th, allow them to legislate and then get a job organised of the legislation we wanted is to extreme is niave.
Some posters here have said, they are happy with 12 but not 24 weeks.
That's what we could potentially have at any point in the future and all the government of the day needs to say is, "well this is the power you wanted to give us and we're using it"

Its no secret I'm against repeal. What I would like to see is the government providing better support services to women in crisis pregnancies and providing a better solution than sucking the kid out!

I was reading a piece earlier today (I think the IT) from a physchiatrist saying it niave to think abortion would solve mental health problems. He quoted a report done in the UK. ( I've not read it) .
Why not provide the supports for these women.

SusieBlue · 02-05-2018 03:43PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I've no problems with democracy. I do have a problem with mob rule.
We elect a government and give them powers to govern and legislate.
We don't like the legislation so we get a mob down O'Connell Street and should loudly.
The biggest mistake they made was backing down on the water charges ( but it's a different debate).
The thought that we can repeal the 8th, allow them to legislate and then get a job organised of the legislation we wanted is to extreme is niave.
Some posters here have said, they are happy with 12 but not 24 weeks.
That's what we could potentially have at any point in the future and all the government of the day needs to say is, "well this is the power you wanted to give us and we're using it"

Its no secret I'm against repeal. What I would like to see is the government providing better support services to women in crisis pregnancies and providing a better solution than sucking the kid out!

I was reading a piece earlier today (I think the IT) from a physchiatrist saying it niave to think abortion would solve mental health problems. He quoted a report done in the UK. ( I've not read it) .
Why not provide the supports for these women.

But the irony of that is that's exactly how the 8th was put in the constitution in the first place.
A group lobbied and campaigned and eventually the group grew so big that when the referendum came around they won the vote and the 8th was added to the constitution.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we are not going to go from being one of the most strict and conservatively regulated countries to a free for all, over night.
There is currently no public appetite. After this referendum, regardless of which way it goes, politicians aren't going to touch on this issue again for a long, long time.

If a society in the future, in say 30/40 years, wants legislation changed to reflect a more liberal regime, who are we to try to sabotage that?

....... · 02-05-2018 03:46PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 02-05-2018 04:11PM

JC wrote:

I don't believe that a Christian can morally vote for unlimited abortion.

It appears they can. U2 in the IT supporting repeal.

pitifulgod · 02-05-2018 04:13PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sometimes governents don't listen to the 'will of the people' (bail out, usc, water for an age). It's also democracy.

One man's democratic will of the people is another man's rollover.

Thereafter its which lobby can best manipulate the undecided. For both sides do manipulate: be it the 1 on 5 or the focus on rape and ffa's.

That's democracy too

And the factor is that if people feel strongly about a position that the government took, that can get them ousted or destroy them in a general election. Putting legislation into the constitution has caused decades of damage. I strongly believe that the public realise this.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments