Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Overheal · 08-05-2018 04:54PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

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.

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.

That’s false and you’re being disingenuous again. The fetal life does have value, but it’s value is less than that of the woman. It’s value appreciates considerably as well the closer it gets to term, to the point of viability.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 05:04PM

Overheal wrote: »

That’s false and you’re being disingenuous again.

You want abortion on demand. No?

You want abortion available no matter how careless and irresponsible the circumstance were that led to the pregnancy. No?

Since the value of the life in the womb must be considered less to accommodate those circumstances, one wonders what value you put on that life.

Zero is necessary for you - since there is no circumstances leading to a pregnancy which the value of life in the womb can trump.

You can't just produce disingenuous out of a hat - you have to substantiate the idea.

The fetal life does have value, but it’s value is less than that of the woman.

Value here means intrinsic value. Value not reliant on the value the mother puts on it.

Zero restriction = zero value.

Overheal · 08-05-2018 05:16PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You want abortion on demand. No?

You want abortion available no matter how careless and irresponsible the circumstance were that led to the pregnancy. No?

Since the value of the life in the womb must be considered less to accommodate those circumstances, one wonders what value you put on that life.

Zero is necessary for you - since there is no circumstances leading to a pregnancy which the value of life in the womb can trump.

You can't just produce disingenuous out of a hat - you have to substantiate the idea.

Value here means intrinsic value. Value not reliant on the value the mother puts on it.

Zero restriction = zero value.

You’re putting words in my mouth. Don’t.

Nobody is arguing for unlimited abortion. That is your term. You don’t like me calling you a slut shamer? Then don’t call me a monster.

The embryo/fetus has value. The mother has value. The mother’s life holds more value than the fetus before it reaches the point of viability. Past this stage the needs of the fetus should be considered first for two primary reasons: that it can reasonably survive to full development outside the womb, should an emergency arise where it must be removed, and the woman that many weeks into pregnancy has had ample time to identify the pregnancy and make her decision.

At 12 weeks in, the fetus is not a viable human yet. But it’s already been roughly 6 weeks past the point where it has a heartbeat, despite not having fully function organs or a nervous system yet. This has given the woman 6 weeks to make the freedom of choice. For reasons besides medical peril? Absolutely. There are social factors no one not in that persons shoes could fully comprehend. That child could be born into miserable conditions, I will leave that up to your imagination, as I’m sure whatever example I offer you would simply scoff at. As for adoption Irish law would need her to declare herself a legally unfit parent. You can surely envision why that might not be an acceptable option for everyone.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 05:25PM

Overheal wrote: »

You’re putting words in my mouth. Don’t.

Nobody is arguing for unlimited abortion. That is your term.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to cut to the chase.

Unrestricted up to 12 weeks. The value of life in the womb up to that point is effectively zero.

That less-than-unlimited abortion is good enough to accommodate 95% of UK abortions. Those which occur later than that aren't likely to be the one's under consideration here: those which occur for the most selfish, careless, irresponsible reasons. The ones which occur because those involved consider life in the womb to be of zero value.

In supporting them, you don the zero value cloak yourself. No?

The embryo/fetus has value.

Let's look at up to 12 weeks then. What value the embryo - given the above

As for adoption Irish law would need her to declare herself a legally unfit parent. You can surely envision why that might not be an acceptable option for everyone.

The law can be changed can't it? This is weak.

Besides, since mental health will be the reason cited (it is in the UK), the person has already declared themselves unfit - in order to obtain an abortion.

Overheal · 08-05-2018 05:30PM

The law can be changed! Exactly! YOU WIN!!!!!

So repeal the 8th, and then you can petition for a law that restricts Abortion-on-Demand. See how that works?

Sheesh.

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 05:31PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

Still waiting on a reply to this, @antiskeptic.
Should I become pregnant by accident tomorrow, what’s your advice?

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 05:35PM

Overheal wrote: »

The law can be changed! Exactly! YOU WIN!!!!!

So repeal the 8th, and then you can petition for a law that restricts Abortion-on-Demand. See how that works?

Sheesh.

You don't change a law to grant rights to the unborn.

Anyway, you were saying about unfit to parent.....

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 05:47PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Still waiting on a reply to this, @antiskeptic.
Should I become pregnant by accident tomorrow, what’s your advice?

Accident? A parachutist's chute doesn't fail to open by accident. It fails to open because the parachutist didn't ensure it would open each and every time he jumped.

You got pregnant because you engaged (presumably for recreation reasons) in a pregnancy-enabling activity. You placed recreation above the priority not to get pregnant. In other words, you gambled and lost.

You might have gambled responsibly, but you gambled. And lost.

Don't see it that way? Well that's because you devalue life in the womb. Which is fine: your perogative.

My advice? Man up - view it the way I've outlined. But I doubt you will. I think you'll persist in the devaluing process, the same process that saw you gamble and lose in the first place. The same process that knew you can obtain an out - which is presumably why you were prepared to gamble in the first place?

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 05:56PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

Fortunately, society regularly interferes in a persons desire to live life precisely the way they want to. It is not unusual for a society to place severe restrictions on a person's interfering with the life of another.

I don't apologise for working to retain something of that situation here in Ireland wrt the life in your and others wombs.

Overheal · 08-05-2018 05:56PM

We go back to the scenario of a burning building: in one room in the west wing is a scared child. In the East wing is a container with 1000 fertilized embryos. You have the chance only to save one. Which do you reckon deserves more of a chance?

Overheal · 08-05-2018 06:03PM

The same argument is had if I ask you to accuse an emergency room physician of devaluing human life by performing Triage.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 06:06PM

Overheal wrote: »

We go back to the scenario of a burning building: in one room in the west wing is a scared child. In the East wing is a container with 1000 fertilized embryos. You have the chance only to save one. Which do you reckon deserves more of a chance?

I'm not against abortion in any circumstances. I am against abortion on demand.

The case for permitting abortion in certain circumstance would involve the kind of conundrum you pose above - how do you value two valuable things precisely.

Me? I'd save the child. The child represents the kind of scenario where I think abortion is permissible. The child represents a complete lack of culpability.

Ask me would I save the trapped arsonist or the embryo's and I might have a different view.

Remember: it's not life vs. life cases I'm objecting to. It's life vs. lifestyle, where lifestyle will frequently involve terms like "inconvenient, not quite the right time, my carefully worked out plan!" I don't suppose for one second that serious mental health issues will be stake for a good deal of what would constitute the new abortion landscape here.

Overheal · 08-05-2018 06:29PM

Say a family already has 6 children, both parents are on the dole and the father is on permanent disability. She conceives again. Should she be forced to keep it?

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 06:40PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Accident? A parachutist's chute doesn't fail to open by accident. It fails to open because the parachutist didn't ensure it would open each and every time he jumped.

You got pregnant because you engaged (presumably for recreation reasons) in a pregnancy-enabling activity. You placed recreation above the priority not to get pregnant. In other words, you gambled and lost.

You might have gambled responsibly, but you gambled. And lost.

Don't see it that way? Well that's because you devalue life in the womb. Which is fine: your perogative.

My advice? Man up - view it the way I've outlined. But I doubt you will. I think you'll persist in the devaluing process, the same process that saw you gamble and lose in the first place. The same process that knew you can obtain an out - which is presumably why you were prepared to gamble in the first place?

That’s absolutely grand, I have you figured out now.
You’re telling me, a 27 year old woman, that should I become pregnant unintentionally while receiving treatment to prevent the development of cancer that I should just ‘man up’.
You’re telling me that my thoughts on the matter are less important than the contents of my womb and you are telling me to gamble my life on it.

You know what the say about people who dismiss the importance of sex in a healthy relationship? They aren’t getting any.
I started this treatment over a year ago, so your advice is to not have sex with my boyfriend for over a year? How helpful of you.

What a delightful, charming, compassionate person you are.
It really sounds like you value life.

And what an absolute shocker that your pal EOTR thanked it, another man who claims to love and respect women.

Honestly that’s one of the most disgusting things I’ve seen on this referendum on Boards.
LoveBoth? Yeah right.
Love judging.
Love pontificating.
Love controlling.
No love for me though. I need to ‘man up’ and face cancer.

Overheal · 08-05-2018 06:40PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not against abortion in any circumstances. I am against abortion on demand.

Then, by the way, you should be voting Yes on the 25th to repeal the 8th Amendment, so that legislation can be enacted to permit such circumstances. I think we’re agreed on that much. All were arguing now is what legislation should follow in the wake of that repeal.

Overheal · 08-05-2018 06:42PM

Life without living, SusieBlue.

Celibacy is just not a reality for people. Neither are perfect contraceptives. Surely 35 years of having the 8th had already exemplified this notion.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 07:24PM

Overheal wrote: »

Then, by the way, you should be voting Yes on the 25th to repeal the 8th Amendment, so that legislation can be enacted to permit such circumstances. I think we’re agreed on that much. All were arguing now is what legislation should follow in the wake of that repeal.

I think we already know what legislation will be enacted. Indeed, there is reason to suppose it will be a lot looser than unrestricted to 12 weeks plus very limited thereafter.

Which is why I'll be voting no.

Better the devil you know.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 07:24PM

Overheal wrote: »

Celibacy is just not a reality for people. Neither are perfect contraceptives. Surely 35 years of having the 8th had already exemplified this notion.

You forgot the bit about abortion availability "next door"

Overheal · 08-05-2018 07:33PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You forgot the bit about abortion availability "next door"

Well you’re never going to ban your neighbors policy so get off with that.

Overheal · 08-05-2018 07:34PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think we already know what legislation will be enacted. Indeed, there is reason to suppose it will be a lot looser than unrestricted to 12 weeks plus very limited thereafter.

Which is why I'll be voting no.

Better the devil you know.

So better the devil you know, like the mother, than the new legislation, like the baby.

Huh. Funny how your logic is

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 07:39PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

That’s absolutely grand, I have you figured out now.
You’re telling me, a 27 year old woman, that should I become pregnant unintentionally while receiving treatment to prevent the development of cancer that I should just ‘man up’.
You’re telling me that my thoughts on the matter are less important than the contents of my womb and you are telling me to gamble my life on it.

Do I inquire further because it's not clear whether you're talking of a case of medical necessity. Or do I leave alone because of the sensitivity of your case.

You say.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 07:43PM

Overheal wrote: »

So better the devil you know, like the mother, than the new legislation, like the baby.

Huh. Funny how your logic is

I think it's fairly clear what the minimum standard for abortions is going to be - who knows what thereafter. I'll take keeping the government hands off the matter until someone figures out a better way around the problem.

The reality is that abortion isn't going to be focused on "difficult cases". I've no issue withholding my support for the bulk of cases which are going to centre around lifestyle ranging down to the basest of levels.

Trust women I don't. Not to that extent anyway.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 07:46PM

Overheal wrote: »

Well you’re never going to ban your neighbors policy so get off with that.

As I said, repeal will simply relocate the mat under which crisis pregnancies are currently being swept to this side of the Irish sea.

I can't help my neighbours policy. I can't help either than lifestyle will out. I can decide not to support this society following a holocaustic rabbit down the rabbithole

Overheal · 08-05-2018 09:32PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I said, repeal will simply relocate the mat under which crisis pregnancies are currently being swept to this side of the Irish sea.

I can't help my neighbours policy. I can't help either than lifestyle will out. I can decide not to support this society following a holocaustic rabbit down the rabbithole

Don’t dare equate this to racist, nationally Planned and operated, violent genocide and human experimentation. You’re going to lose your argument right quick talking like that. Already slipping with the misogynistic comments

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 10:08PM

Overheal wrote: »

Don’t dare equate this to racist, nationally Planned and operated, violent genocide and human experimentation. You’re going to lose your argument right quick talking like that. Already slipping with the misogynistic comments

1. Men have been completely eliminated from the discussion by the YES side. It can't be helped that the focus is on women. You'd have to point out a misogynistic comment for me to comment.

2. The same root structures are present here as in any other area where humanity has been destroyed en masse by the greater power:

The greater power desires something another stands in the way of them obtaining > subhumanizing of the another personhood (reduced to an obstacle) > justification for destruction of the obstacle (not personhood).

I'm not supposing the government/repealer on a par with the nazi's or the like. I'm merely pointing out the same kind of processes involved. And of course, the enormous loss of life involved.

08-05-2018 10:30PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. Men have been completely eliminated from the discussion by the YES side. It can't be helped that the focus is on women. You'd have to point out a misogynistic comment for me to comment.

2. The same root structures are present here as in any other area where humanity has been destroyed en masse by the greater power:

The greater power desires something another stands in the way of them obtaining > subhumanizing of the another personhood (reduced to an obstacle) > justification for destruction of the obstacle (not personhood).

I'm not supposing the government/repealer on a par with the nazi's or the like. I'm merely pointing out the same kind of processes involved. And of course, the enormous loss of life involved.

1. No men haven't been eliminated from the discussion by the yes side, many of us are men and are voting so our partners can have safer medical care.

2. Humanity has not been destroyed by abortion, we've the highest population levels ever and people still are not forced to have abortions, people have choices in most developed countries. To say its the same process as what the nazis did is showing either a wilful ignorance of their actions or just outright mental gymnastics, while also glossing over the fact that only the retain the 8th group have links to neo nazis groups through organisations that make up their membership.

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 10:52PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

1. No men haven't been eliminated from the discussion by the yes side, many of us are men and are voting so our partners can have safer medical care.

Do you see a man's possible say on the life he helped to create featuring anywhere. Please link.

2. Humanity has not been destroyed by abortion, we've the highest population levels ever and people still are not forced to have abortions, people have choices in most developed countries. To say its the same process as what the nazis did is showing either a wilful ignorance of their actions or just outright mental gymnastics, while also glossing over the fact that only the retain the 8th group have links to neo nazis groups through organisations that make up their membership.

Process at root.

Overheal · 08-05-2018 10:55PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think it's fairly clear what the minimum standard for abortions is going to be - who knows what thereafter. I'll take keeping the government hands off the matter until someone figures out a better way around the problem.

The reality is that abortion isn't going to be focused on "difficult cases". I've no issue withholding my support for the bulk of cases which are going to centre around lifestyle ranging down to the basest of levels.

Trust women I don't. Not to that extent anyway.

.

uck51js9zml2yt · 08-05-2018 10:56PM

If this gets passed, there's one thing we can be assured of.
It's that the people of this land place more value in an unborn bird than an unborn child.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/39/section/22/enacted/en/html

I'm glad people here have their priorities right!

antiskeptic · 08-05-2018 11:10PM

Overheal wrote: »

.

I wouldn't trust the men involved in this cohort to any greater degree than I do women. They too have lifestyles to be getting on with. Indeed, I'd suppose them, sans maternal instinct, to be faster down the gangplank.

Men, as I have pointed out a few times already, aren't even permitted in the discussion (I mean, the life in the womb is half their creation, ain't it), hence the focus on women.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments