Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

antiskeptic · 07-05-2018 10:36PM

Overheal wrote: »

Speaking of Crises, there’s also trying to force women to make a difficult choice in a difficult timespan. 12 weeks is about the minimum length of time that seems reasonable. Some women don’t even conform they are pregnant until 6 weeks. Then you need time for counseling, insight around your friends, your family, time alone to your own thoughts. Getting it to a tighter window would just force women and families into even more panic feeling that their options are that more severely limited.

I imagine there are any number of strategies aimed at crisis reduction:

sex education / tackling our relationship with alcohol / adoption services / social housing / contraceptive availability and use / child minding / early years support...

The time to avert crisis is long before the crisis arises. Prevention is far better than cure.

Timberrrrrrrr · 07-05-2018 10:39PM

Overheal wrote: »

Speaking of Crises, there’s also trying to force women to make a difficult choice in a difficult timespan. 12 weeks is about the minimum length of time that seems reasonable. Some women don’t even conform they are pregnant until 6 weeks. Then you need time for counseling, insight around your friends, your family, time alone to your own thoughts. Getting it to a tighter window would just force women and families into even more panic feeling that their options are that more severely limited.

Ah sure that can't be right! Haven't the anti-choice crowd been telling us (for how long now?) that women (sluts) will be having several abortions a year (on a whim) once the 8th is repealed to facilitate thier party lifestyles?

Overheal · 08-05-2018 12:40AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I imagine there are any number of strategies aimed at crisis reduction:

sex education / tackling our relationship with alcohol / adoption services / social housing / contraceptive availability and use / child minding / early years support...

The time to avert crisis is long before the crisis arises. Prevention is far better than cure.

So what you’re saying - forgive me - is that we don’t need to give people the option to access healthcare options when they are pregnant, what we REALLY need to do is just do the small task of fixing Ireland’s alcohol culture and solve the housing crisis and make orphanages not places for child abuse and fight against the conservatives to expand sex education and access to contraceptives and child support services?

I mean yeah have a crack at it but none of that addresses some of these issues whatsoever. Your response implies an assumption that a Planned and expected pregnancy would never need to end in an abortion. You seem to believe the problem is alcohol because of course, the real issue is all the sluts opening their legs and young fellas forcing themselves on the women folk. Am I wrong?

Better people than I can rattle of the numerous case studies of women denied urgent care who were permanently harmed or even died later because of a pregnancy or chance of pregnancy, in Ireland. I can’t imagine each one of those pregnancies was a complete surprise. What do you do for women who plan the pregnancy but something happens along the way? A couple weeks into the pregnancy the woman needs to undergo a treatment for a new diagnosis but is refused treatment because of risk to the fetus? She’s just out of luck under your current laws.

....... · 08-05-2018 08:27AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 10:26AM

....... wrote: »

Nonsense, some of us just dont want to be mothers, ever.

Ive plenty of money and support but I dont want children. No crisis, no panic, simply no desire to procreate.

As has been pointed out to you MANY times, no contraception is 100% safe, so I need options that cover contraception failure.

There's a reason pro choice use opposite end of the spectrum examples to haul this gig over the line.

Of course your entitled to your view - but if your view was promulgated by pro choice they'd be torpeded under the water line.

Those who struggle with the idea of life in the womb having value (and there clearly are many) aint going to be voting for your cause.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 10:32AM

Overheal wrote: »

So what you’re saying - forgive me - is that we don’t need to give people the option to access healthcare options when they are pregnant, what we REALLY need to do is just do the small task of fixing Ireland’s alcohol culture and solve the housing crisis and make orphanages not places for child abuse and fight against the conservatives to expand sex education and access to contraceptives and child support services?

I mean yeah have a crack at it but none of that addresses some of these issues whatsoever. Your response implies an assumption that a Planned and expected pregnancy would never need to end in an abortion. You seem to believe the problem is alcohol because of course, the real issue is all the sluts opening their legs and young fellas forcing themselves on the women folk. Am I wrong?

Better people than I can rattle of the numerous case studies of women denied urgent care who were permanently harmed or even died later because of a pregnancy or chance of pregnancy, in Ireland. I can’t imagine each one of those pregnancies was a complete surprise. What do you do for women who plan the pregnancy but something happens along the way? A couple weeks into the pregnancy the woman needs to undergo a treatment for a new diagnosis but is refused treatment because of risk to the fetus? She’s just out of luck under your current laws.

Repeal is an Irish solution to an Irish problem: crass, unimaginative, lazy ... and politically uber-convenient.

Let's see if that's all we're capable of. It wouldn't surprise me.

....... · 08-05-2018 10:33AM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 10:38AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's a reason pro choice use opposite end of the spectrum examples to haul this gig over the line.

Of course your entitled to your view - but if your view was promulgated by pro choice they'd be torpeded under the water line.

Those who struggle with the idea of life in the womb having value (and there clearly are many) aint going to be voting for your cause.

Then they need to stop being so selfish and stop thinking of themselves and consider that other people feel differently.
Its takes some amount of arrogance to tell someone who is saying they do NOT want children that they should be forced to have them, if they were to accidentally fall pregnant.
Love both, indeed.

Timberrrrrrrr · 08-05-2018 10:51AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

THE 8th is an Irish solution to an Irish problem: crass, unimaginative, lazy ... and politically uber-convenient.

Let's see if that's all we're capable of. It wouldn't surprise me.

Fixed that for you

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 11:31AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Then they need to stop being so selfish and stop thinking of themselves and consider that other people feel differently.
Its takes some amount of arrogance to tell someone who is saying they do NOT want children that they should be forced to have them, if they were to accidentally fall pregnant.
Love both, indeed.

What part of 'value life in the womb' don't you understand? In that event it's not just the mother they are confined to thinking of.

They now have to balance interests.

So when someone rows in, says they dont want children ever ... and then engages in an activity which has the distinct possibility of making them..

Your position only works when life in the womb is valued at zero. Once value attached then evaluation will occur.

By all means keep banging the "keep your noses out of it " drum though.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 11:39AM

....... wrote: »

There is nothing opposite end of the spectrum about not wanting any children

The choice campaign disagrees with you. Because they know the electorate, on balance, would find against you.

By all means have no kids - but not abortion on demand to simplify things for you.

There is a reason its rapes and ffa's. You might not like the fact that folk detect a spectrum that involves self interest - but its a reality. And Choice are making sure to keep the electorate's mind firmly on the inarguably selfless of cases.

You have to reckon with an electorate who see value in life in the womb to some or other degree. The more self centred to motives for an abortion appear to them to be, the less likely they'll trade in the value of the life in the womb to accommodate those motives.

....... · 08-05-2018 11:40AM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 11:42AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

What part of 'value life in the womb' don't you understand? In that event it's not just the mother they are confined to thinking of.

They now have to balance interests.

So when someone rows in, says they dont want children ever ... and then engages in an activity which has the distinct possibility of making them..

Your position only works when life in the womb is valued at zero. Once value attached then evaluation will occur.

By all means keep banging the "keep your noses out of it " drum though.

Balance your own interests. I'll balance mine. Others will balance theirs. We don't need your input, your opinion is irrelevant to my life.

You know nothing of my circumstances or history or plans for the future so you have no business interfering with your nonsense.
It really is that simple.
You must be absolutely exhausted from all the worrying you are doing about the uterus's of women you will never meet.

....... · 08-05-2018 11:45AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 02:10PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If its an all or nothing (which is more or less the choice given us) then they are within their rights to plump for maintaining (an imperfect) status quo. They only have to attach value onto the life in the womb

So, are you seriously suggesting that people who dont want children OR are finished having children, should remain celibate for the rest life? Really? Think hard about what you are suggesting here. And then try to base an argument in reality.

The alternative you propose is unrestricted abortion. Again, it depends on what's being placed on the other side of the scales. If a human life then so be it celibacy, if that's what you want.

You have other options though. You could double down on your contraception and render it all but implausible an unwanted pregnancy. You could get yourself sterilized. You could bear a child and give it up for adoption.

It really depends, like I say, on what's on the other side of the scales in the eyes of the electorate.

No one has said that life in the womb has to be valued at zero

It has to be valued less than the above options. Less than, for example, taking the time to manage your fertility such that a pregancy is rendered all but impossible.

But you don't want that do you. You want to be able to do as you feel sufficient and if a pregnancy then abort.

But the beat you are drumming to is incorrect, misunderstood and not based in reality.

It is truly baffling to me how you can continue to spew the same nonsense no matter how many times I factually correct you.

Are you just incapable of accepting fact?

I merely citing reality. Pro Choice wouldn't place your argumentation anywhere near the front of the queue. It understands that the electorate are anything but over the line on this and operate accordingly.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 02:13PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course not exclusively - if it was exclusively, you wouldn't be able to get unrestricted abortion over the line. But by prioritising all the "difficult" cases you get the pick at the edge of the resistance. After which, the attempt to ram the rest home.

YOU decided to focus on "the cohort under discussion" which turned out to be your interpretation of people having wild sex without taking responsibility and insisted over and over that these made up the majority of people seeking abortions - despite me correcting you with the stats regarding contraceptive failure and the stats of those seeking abortions.

Your contraceptive failure gig didn't stack up numbers wise.

....... · 08-05-2018 02:24PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 08-05-2018 02:27PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 02:32PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's what's it's beginning to look like. Anyway, with 95%+ abortions taking place in the UK before 12 weeks and unrestricted up to that we're not arguing about fundamentally anything different.

Oh but it did. You simply didnt understand the numbers. You tried to extrapolate the effective rate (of just one contraception type) to the numbers of a population while failing to accept that you were missing many variables. We dont know at any given time how many couples are having sex and how often and with how many different partners. Hence a straight extrapolation is impossible.

The effective rate is number of pregnancies arising per year of use. It doesn't matter how many times you have sex in the year: some will have more, some will have less, some will be more careful, some will be less.

The point is that you would need multiples of the actual population to achieve that level of failure using the method properly

I wonder what the failure rate of combined contraceptive are? Pill and condom? Pill and condom and rhythm?

I wonder how important it is not to get pregnant.

....... · 08-05-2018 02:39PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 02:46PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course not exclusively - if it was exclusively, you wouldn't be able to get unrestricted abortion over the line. But by prioritising all the "difficult" cases you get the pick at the edge of the resistance. After which, the attempt to ram the rest home.

Your contraceptive failure gig didn't stack up numbers wise.

I'm 27, I have no living children, and I'm being investigated for high grade genotyping cell changes in my cervix picked up during an abnormal smear test.
The treatment I'm currently getting is stopping the abnormal cells from progressing to cancer.

Before each appointment I have to do a pregnancy test, and if that test were to come back positive, my treatment would cease.

I'm only 27 years old. I'm taking every precaution.
Cervical cancer is the second biggest killer in women aged 25-39 in this country.
It is also one of the fastest spreading cancers out there.
So if treatment was stopped, I'd likely have full blown cancer in 9 months, or even be dead.

Do you think its acceptable that if I were to find out I'm pregnant tomorrow, I can't have an abortion in my own country?
Even though without that abortion, I could develop cancer?
What would you advice to me be, besides "don't get pregnant"?

Overheal · 08-05-2018 02:59PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's what's it's beginning to look like. Anyway, with 95+ abortions taking place before 12 weeks and unrestricted up to that we're not arguing about fundamentally anything different.

The effective rate is number of pregnancies arising per year of use. It doesn't matter how many times you have sex in the year: some will have more, some will have less, some will be more careful, some will be less.

The point is that you would need multiples of the actual population to achieve that level of failure using the method properly

I wonder what the failure rate of combined contraceptive are? Pill and condom? Pill and condom and rhythm?

I wonder how important it is not to get pregnant.

While I don’t have the combined rate figures I can tell you they are not 100%. Condoms fail about 18% of the time and the Pill fails about 9% of the time according to data compiled over time by the CDC (US).

Even methods such as surgical sterilization have a failure rate. As do the implants and IUDs. Add to that, such devices and procedures are inherently expensive, and not without complications as aforementioned above. Whatever way to do the probability math, you can’t combine any of these methods to reach 100% failure proof contraception. Plus you’re still sidestepping the reality that medical complications can still arise as a result of even a planned pregnancy that, under the 8th, jeapordize the health and life of the woman to the priority of an unborn fetus.

Overheal · 08-05-2018 03:03PM

Also speaking of just “solving the drink culture in Ireland” to stop all then sluts from having babies....

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/drink-link-buses-to-service-50-rural-communities-841535.html

....... · 08-05-2018 03:09PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 03:50PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To the tune of 100,000 abortions annually in the UK. I'm less concerned with the

.. Loads of people who get pregnant while using contraception go ahead and have the child regardless.

Its with the pill/coil/implant/depot injection that people dont realise until its too late and there are no alternatives except to continue the pregnancy or have an abortion.

Realise what? That there are limits when using a single contraceptive? Are we supposed to compensate for peoples lack of awareness by providing abortion?

We'll inevitably circle back to the notion of value of life in the womb. According to your view, that value doesn't extend past:

- a person's limited realisation regarding the use and effectiveness of contraceptives. Especially a single form of contraceptive

- a persons inability to utilize the contraceptive properly

Indeed, it's clear that the value is always going to be less than whatever the minimum value a person places on not getting pregnant. For no matter whether ultra-responsible and unfortunate or downright careless, the value of the life in the womb is always less.

Which is why I suggested Choice can't claim a more than zero value for life in the womb.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 03:53PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As ever, you are relying on the mother to assign the value. I am not.

I know your world view is that the only people seeking abortions is irresponsible sluts who werent doubling down on their contraception or practicing celibacy but the truth is very different.

Sluts is your word. Irresponsible is mine.

....... · 08-05-2018 04:01PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 04:12PM

Overheal wrote: »

While I don’t have the combined rate figures I can tell you they are not 100%.

I don't suppose that myself either. It's just that we are faced with a situation where failure will more the result of incorrect / insufficient use of contraceptives than in any lack in the contraceptives themselves.

There will be plenty of situations where an abortion is sought when usage of contraceptives has been downright irresponsible / non existant

We are being asked for the value of life in the womb to be reduced to cover the lowest possible denominator.

Which places value of life in the womb at zero

Even methods such as surgical sterilization have a failure rate. As do the implants and IUDs. Add to that, such devices and procedures are inherently expensive, and not without complications as aforementioned above. Whatever way to do the probability math, you can’t combine any of these methods to reach 100% failure proof contraception.

The level of the problem we are being to give a yes or no answer to isn't one defined by the fractional shortfall in potential efficacy.

Plus you’re still sidestepping the reality that medical complications can still arise as a result of even a planned pregnancy that, under the 8th, jeapordize the health and life of the woman to the priority of an unborn fetus.

I would repeat that the cohort under discussion isn't the infinitesimally tiny amounts of these cases. These are the red herring under which mass abortion for any reason is being sought.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 04:28PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True.

Society's morality however, has no issue applying itself to folk who don't agree with it, find it extreme and restrictive.

I don't see that that in itself is a line of argument.

Which is why we are going for a reasonably restricted option when offering abortion on request. 12 weeks is low,

If 95%+ abortions in England take place pre 12 weeks then I don't see how that's restrictive. It's open enough to cater for basically all who would want an abortion for any reason at all.

Realise that they are pregnant of course. As in, while you may recognise immediately that a condom has failed and take appropriate steps, that cant happen with the pill/implant/depot injection/IUD.

And yes, that is exactly what we should do as we do not have 100% effective contraception. Otherwise we have enforced pregnancies which is not acceptable.

If someone valued life in the womb highly, then there are measures they could take to ensure, to infinitesimally tiny %'s, that they wouldn't fall pregnant.

Aside from rape, no pregnancy is enforced. Pregnancy arises out of a choice to engage in an activity which can result in pregnancy.

No - YOU continue to circle back to some obsessive need to say that the value of the life in the womb is zero. I have refuted it on a number of occasions but you seem unable to understand.

I don't understand a refutation which values life in the womb at less than the most careless, irresponsible way in which a woman can fall pregnant.

Abortion on demand is intended to cover such cases. Not just these cases certainly, but inclusive of such cases.

Value value value - Ive no idea why you are so obsessed with it. It doesnt add anything to the discussion.

You are excruciatingly focused on this one tiny irrelevant point - the value of the life, they value of life in the womb.

Ive told you many times. Its irrelevant. All that is relevant is that a womans bodily autonomy is not compromised by being pregnant.

Irrelevant is a.k.a. zero value.

It's somewhat astonishing that you see "value in the womb" as a tiny point when it's the point on which the No campaign is centred. Now you might not agree that life in the womb has any value but you ought at least understand where No are coming from

I understand where you are coming from, for instance. You see a clump of cells and nothing more. So of course you see autonomy as the big thing. It way outweighs the value of but a clump of cells.

Your position relies on it just being a clump of cells. It's not a tiny irrelevant thing for you to focus on - its central to your position.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 04:35PM

Overheal wrote: »

Also speaking of just “solving the drink culture in Ireland” to stop all then sluts from having babies....

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/drink-link-buses-to-service-50-rural-communities-841535.html

I know it doesn't suit your book that there will be plenty of folk out there shagging drink-assisted circles around themselves. But it's a fact of life.

And that fact of life wants an out from the consequences of it's actions. It's understandable of course, but that's what it amounts to

There will be a range of situations resulting in pregnancy. They range from the most careless/selfish to the most tragic.

We are being asked to value life in the womb at zero - so as to accommodate all comers.

-

Can you see why Choice doesn't concentrate on this reality? Why it keeps serving up a diet of difficult cases and autonomy divorced from why the pregnancy arose in the first place?

It's understandable: you always put your best foot forward in getting what you want - keep the warts and all under the table. Both sides do it.

But c'mon! You really think folk don't understand some of the underbelly going on here?

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments