Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Pete29 · 14-05-2018 4:12pm #1

Many people seem to think the pro-lifers are only the rabidly religious who want force their religion upon others. In my case, it's simply a values question. When does the right to a human being's life begin. When did the right to your life begin?

Currently, in the event of repeal, the government is planning on introducing legislation which will allow the killing of human life up to twelve weeks gestation for ANY reason. After twelve weeks the proposed legislation allows for abortion in cases of risk to the mother's mental and physical health. Note that physical health is not defined and mental health is be treated as interchangeable with physical health.

In the event the mother's life is in danger, abortion is justified, but it is not the intentional ending of one life, but the unfortunate consequence of providing the medical treatment necessary to save the mother's life.

The 8th amendment allows for this: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

The vast vast vast majority of pregnancies are consensual and healthy and Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to have children. This is the attempt of the Yes campaign to introduced abortion on demand in the name of female empowerment and progress.

Vote No

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

There are some interesting debates going on here but I think a quick reminder of the forum rules is required:

1. Keep to the topic. This thread is about abortion. If you want to discuss the Cervical testing scandal or other issues please do so in another thread.

2. Please be civil. Obviously people can respond to another's post, but don't respond to the poster themselves. Examples include referring to a poster's other opinions, checking their post counts, aggressive and personal comments etc. Any more of this will be dealt with by sanctions including bans if that is what it takes to keep the debate going.

Afollower · 14-05-2018 4:20pm

The 8th amendment allows for this: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Tell that to the family of the late Savita Halappanavar!

oscarBravo · 14-05-2018 4:21pm

Pete29 wrote: »

The vast vast vast majority of pregnancies are consensual and healthy...

I'm sure it's a great comfort to anyone with a non-consensual or health-threatening pregnancy to know they're in a minority.

...and Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to have children.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to Praveen Halappanavar.

This is the attempt of the Yes campaign to introduced abortion on demand in the name of female empowerment and progress.

Goodness, we wouldn't want female empowerment and progress, would we?

Vote No

I'll be voting yes, thanks.

maccored · 14-05-2018 4:22pm

Personally I don't get wrapped up in the very complicated issues. I just ask myself a simple question - who has the right to decide if they have a baby or not? Assuming that both prospective parents have their own, private conversation (which again is no-one's business but their own), then ultimately it's the choice of the woman who is pregnant. The change isn't insisting every pregnant woman HAS TO have an abortion. Its just giving her the choice. lets be honest, it happens anyway, regardless, so voting No isn't going to stop Irish women having abortions. it just makes their own lives more difficult.

The Specialist · 14-05-2018 4:25pm

Pete29 wrote: »

Currently, in the event of repeal, the government is planning on introducing legislation which will allow the killing of human life up to twelve weeks gestation for ANY reason.

It's not a human life, it's a foetus. Typical emotionally maniplulative bull**** from the No side because you really don't have anything else to hang your arguements on.

McMurphy · 14-05-2018 4:30pm

Haven't decided 100% yet, am still on the fence on it.

However, I've not yet received a polling card, and am.Wondering if i should have received it by now?

I moved house last year, so am wondering if that has anything to Do with it.

Pete29 · 14-05-2018 4:31pm

The Specialist wrote: »

It's not a human life, it's a foetus. Typical emotionally maniplulative bull**** from the No side because you really don't have anything else to hang your arguements on.

It's contains a human genome and it's life. Ergo, it's Human Life.

Wombatman · 14-05-2018 4:31pm

Pete29 wrote: »

In my case, it's simply a values question.

When does the right to a human being's life begin?
When did the right to your life begin?

In everyone's case it's a values question. You are aware that people have differing values right?

Stop trying to impose yours on others. Vote Yes and let everyone decide based on their own values.

Sintend · 14-05-2018 4:32pm

You should have received your polling card at this stage. Mine came last week.

spacecoyote · 14-05-2018 4:32pm

Pete29 wrote: »

Many people seem to think the pro-lifers are only the rabidly religious who want force their religion upon others. In my case, it's simply a values question. When does the right to a human being's life begin. When did the right to your life begin?

Ultimately, what difference does your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) make?

If you want to vote No, then vote No, that's your right.

I'm an atheist & I will be 100% voting Yes. Not because of the fact that I'm an atheist, or because of my values, but because ultimately, its not my right to tell anyone how to live their life, or force my values on them.

Pete29 wrote: »

The vast vast vast majority of pregnancies are consensual and healthy and Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to have children. This is the attempt of the Yes campaign to introduced abortion on demand in the name of female empowerment and progress.

What in the name of God (pardon the phrase

) is the point you're making here? Repealing the 8th has absolutely nothing to do with people who have consensual pregnancies. Do you think that there will be evil bogey-man hanging around street corners grabbing pregnant women & forcing them to have abortions?

You do understand the concept of "choice" I assume, given you chose to not believe in any God.

Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, it means you believe each individual has the right to choose what is the best life-decision for themselves, not for someone else to force a decision on them because it doesn't fit their personal values.

Pete29 wrote: »

Vote No

No!

Chips Lovell · 14-05-2018 4:33pm

The Specialist wrote: »

It's not a human life, it's a foetus. Typical emotionally maniplulative bull**** from the No side because you really don't have anything else to hang your arguements on.

Hi folks. I know this is an emotive subject for a lot of people, but please heed the charter and keep it civil. You can make you point without getting personal.

Thanks

SusieBlue · 14-05-2018 4:34pm

Pete29 wrote: »

It's contains a human genome and it's life. Ergo, it's Human Life.

I don't think the issue is whether its human or not. I think that's pretty much undisputed.
The issue is whether it should have a right to life equal to that of the woman in which it resides.

McMurphy · 14-05-2018 4:35pm

Sintend wrote: »

You should have received your polling card at this stage. Mine came last week.

Ok thanks. I will contact the guy who bought my old place and see if they arrived with him.

Next question, they're not essential to cast a vote are they?

Pete29 · 14-05-2018 4:36pm

Afollower wrote: »

The 8th amendment allows for this: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Tell that to the family of the late Savita Halappanavar!

A tragic case, but not caused by the 8th. She was having a miscarriage, miscarriages on rare occasion have the possibility of causing the contraction of sepsis. In her case a particularly strong strain of anti-biotic resistant E.Coli which was mismanaged by the hospital staff that was treating here and was classed as "medical misadventure".

Public policies should reflect the vast majority of society and cases, not a tiny minority.

Mrs Shuttleworth · 14-05-2018 4:36pm

I think the truth of this situation lies somewhere in the middle between the two poles on offer. I'm not happy with what either camp is promoting.

If the referendum is lost the Government is solely to blame.

Sintend · 14-05-2018 4:37pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Ok thanks. I will contact the guy who bought my old place and see if they arrived with him.

Next question, they're not essential to cast a vote are they?

No you can still vote without it once you bring i.d. like a passport, driver's licence, public services card or a student card.

McMurphy · 14-05-2018 4:38pm

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I think the truth of this situation lies somewhere in the middle between the two poles on offer. I'm not happy with what either camp is promoting.

If the referendum is lost the Government is solely to blame.

Paddy Power seem to have higher odds (at 10/3) of it passing.

Currently a no vote is sitting at 5/4 odds.

14-05-2018 4:38pm

Pete29 wrote: »

It's contains a human genome and it's life. Ergo, it's Human Life.

If I run my fingers across the inside of my cheek I will have loose cells containing the same info. Are they human life?

If you have the choice to save one 5 year old child or a million frozen embryos, what would you do?

Sin City · 14-05-2018 4:39pm

Im on the fence too , but leaning towards yes

Obviously I would be against abortion on demand and I still think its a life

On the other hand my beliefs should not infringe on someone else freedom

I can only think logically and philiosphically

Im never going to be the one in this position but my daughter might

So im probably going to vote Yes

SusieBlue · 14-05-2018 4:40pm

Pete29 wrote: »

A tragic case, but not caused by the 8th. She was having a miscarriage, miscarriages on rare occasion have the possibility of causing the contraction of sepsis. In her case a particularly strong strain of anti-biotic resistant E.Coli which was mismanaged by the hospital staff that was treating here and was classed as "medical misadventure".

Public policies should reflect the vast majority of society and cases, not a tiny minority.

Incorrect.

She was miscarrying and hospitalised for a whole week before she died. She had already been told that her pregnancy wasn't viable but was made wait for nature to take its course with no medical intervention.
She requested an abortion at the beginning of the week, when they were certain there was no hope for her baby.
She wanted to speed up the inevitable. She wanted to begin grieving for her lost child.
Keeping her there for a week while her baby slowly died was in itself a cruelty.

If she had been granted an abortion when she first requested one, the sepsis could never have occurred, and the medical mismanagement wouldn't have happened.

We would never have heard of her and she'd probably have gone on to have more babies.
Savita didn't want an abortion, she wanted a baby.
And what happened to her could happen to any pregnant woman with the current laws.

runawaybishop · 14-05-2018 4:41pm

I'm an atheist and I am not a fan of abortion but I will still be voting yes, because this referendum is about allowing people to make their own choices and not forcing one on them.

realdanbreen · 14-05-2018 4:43pm

Pete29 wrote: »

Many people seem to think the pro-lifers are only the rabidly religious who want force their religion upon others. In my case, it's simply a values question. When does the right to a human being's life begin. When did the right to your life begin?

Currently, in the event of repeal, the government is planning on introducing legislation which will allow the killing of human life up to twelve weeks gestation for ANY reason. After twelve weeks the proposed legislation allows for abortion in cases of risk to the mother's mental and physical health. Note that physical health is not defined and mental health is be treated as interchangeable with physical health.

In the event the mother's life is in danger, abortion is justified, but it is not the intentional ending of one life, but the unfortunate consequence of providing the medical treatment necessary to save the mother's life.

The 8th amendment allows for this: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

The vast vast vast majority of pregnancies are consensual and healthy and Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to have children. This is the attempt of the Yes campaign to introduced abortion on demand in the name of female empowerment and progress.

Vote No

What's the 'I'm an atheist..' all about?
Who cares what you are. Personally I'm sick and tired of people, on both sides, telling me how they're voting and how I should vote.

manonboard · 14-05-2018 4:43pm

The Specialist wrote: »

It's not a human life, it's a foetus. Typical emotionally maniplulative bull**** from the No side because you really don't have anything else to hang your arguements on.

I think you are actually doing the exact thing you are accusing of. By calling it a foetus, its correct in one sense, but trying to dehumanise the life is indeed emotionally manipulative.

I will be voting to repeal the law, because i think it will reduce suffering by the criteria i've set to measure that.

However, why do you not consider it a human life? why is a foetus not a human life?
This is a genuine question. I got an A in my higher level biology in school, and my understanding of the definition of life (there are a few) is that this foetus meets all the criteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

I could be missing something, but i'd like to be educated on it if i am. If not, then i think its important to point out that its a human life we are ending. Its fine to end it if we think it is ethically the best course. I currently do.

manonboard · 14-05-2018 4:47pm

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I think the truth of this situation lies somewhere in the middle between the two poles on offer. I'm not happy with what either camp is promoting.

If the referendum is lost the Government is solely to blame.

I agree with your first part. I find it delusional that each side seems to think there is a black and white answer to something this complex. There are also many people in each side that don't. I wish that was shown more.

May i ask why you think the government is to blame if the referendum is 'lost'? Does 'lost' mean the repeal does not happen?

James Brown · 14-05-2018 4:48pm

It all goes back to, 'If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one'.
It's not forced abortions, it's choice. Anyone who wants one 'on demand' can go abroad however this is about Irish women having the right to choose in their own country, not to mention any medical issues that require the procedure be carried out.
We cannot legislate a one rule for all policy regarding this. It should be up to the person with advice, not permission, from medical professionals on a case by case.

We are only 20 odd years since condoms became legal. Hopefully this too will pass into embarrassing history.

McMurphy · 14-05-2018 4:49pm

I listened to a woman on Newstalk one morning last week being interviewed about how she may vote in the referendum, she said she would be voting no.

Asked if she would like to state her reasons for intending to do so she stated that a foetus was a human life. She was pressed on this by a yes campaigner, but she made the analogy that (forgive me if this isn't word for word) that a foetus had a heartbeat, and if someone can be officially pronounced dead due to a lack of a heartbeat, why did this not apply to a foetus?

The yes campaigner was stuck for words tbh.

Guy:Incognito · 14-05-2018 4:51pm

If you don't want an abortion, then the repeal of the 8th won't have an effect on you. All you're doing by voting no is forcing your opinion on others, the vast majority of whom you don't know. Making their lives harder for no reason.

You look after your life and let others do the same . people's reasons are their own for what they want to do and it's nothing to do with me what they do with their choices.

Hitman3000 · 14-05-2018 4:52pm

I am not comfortable with abortion but I am less comfortable deciding whether another person has their choice regarding their health restricted by me voting NO. So I will be voting Yes. I believe women should have the final say own their own bodies it's that simple for me.

Pete29 · 14-05-2018 4:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If I run my fingers across the inside of my cheek I will have loose cells containing the same info. Are they human life?

If you have the choice to save one 5 year old child or a million frozen embryos, what would you do?

No, because cheek cells when left to their natural processes do not become human infants. An implanted human embryo, when not killed, will develop into a human infant very quickly and has the right to do so in the vast majority of cases.

You're 5 year old vs a million embryos depends on the situation define within the boundaries of the metaphor. If it's simply one dies or the other. I would choose the 5 year old.

Question for you: If you were alone on a space ship with a friend, that last humans in existence containing a million frozen embryos that were going to populate a new planet and give rise to a new generation of humans, knowing that delivering them to the planet would end up killing your friend due to a lack of resources on the ship, Which would you choose?

You can devise these situational ethic thought experiments to high light different values in different situations, but they don't usually apply to the most common situations, because they're both outlandish and unrealistic. Neither my metaphor or yours applies to the vast majority of pregnancies in Ireland.

Guy:Incognito · 14-05-2018 4:53pm

manonboard wrote: »

I agree with your first part. I find it delusional that each side seems to think there is a black and white answer to something this complex. There are also many people in each side that don't. I wish that was shown more.

May i ask why you think the government is to blame if the referendum is 'lost'? Does 'lost' mean the repeal does not happen?

It is black and white . You should be able to make your own choices for yourself regarding your own body and health.

So should everyone else ......

Pete29 · 14-05-2018 4:55pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I am not comfortable with abortion but I am less comfortable deciding whether another person has their choice regarding their health restricted by me voting NO. So I will be voting Yes. I believe women should have the final say own their own bodies it's that simple for me.

The vast vast vast majority of pregnancies are consensual. We all know the main biological function of sex is reproduction. We all know there is a possibility of pregnancy when we have sex. We accept that risk when we consent to sex. Therefore, we consent to the possibility of pregnancy when we consent to sex. The choice comes before conception, not after.

endacl · 14-05-2018 4:56pm

Pete29 wrote: »

Question for you: If you were alone on a space ship with a friend, that last humans in existence containing a million frozen embryos that were going to populate a new planet and give rise to a new generation of humans, knowing that delivering them to the planet would end up killing your friend due to a lack of resources on the ship, Which would you choose?

I’d choose to save my friend. It’d be years before those embryos were any craic at all.

14-05-2018 4:57pm

Pete29 wrote: »

No, because cheek cells when left to their natural processes do not become human infants. An implanted human embryo, when not killed, will develop into a human infant very quickly and has the right to do so in the vast majority of cases.

You're 5 year old vs a million embryos depends on the situation define within the boundaries of the metaphor. If it's simply one dies or the other. I would choose the 5 year old.

Question for you: If you were alone on a space ship with a friend, that last humans in existence containing a million frozen embryos that were going to populate a new planet and give rise to a new generation of humans, knowing that delivering them to the planet would end up killing your friend due to a lack of resources on the ship, Which would you choose?

You can devise these situational ethic thought experiments to high light different values in different situations, but they don't usually apply to the most common situations, because they're both outlandish and unrealistic. Neither my metaphor or yours applies to the vast majority of pregnancies in Ireland.

I would ask my friend what they CHOOSE.

Human embryo can only become a living person in the presence of an accepting body. The woman chooses to not be that body.

SusieBlue · 14-05-2018 4:57pm

Pete29 wrote: »

No, because cheek cells when left to their natural processes do not become human infants. An implanted human embryo, when not killed, will develop into a human infant very quickly and has the right to do so in the vast majority of cases.

1 in 3 pregnancies naturally miscarry before week 12.
That's why most people don't announce they are expecting - too much chance something could go wrong. There is also the risk of stillbirth and FFA, so its not just a case of it being a certainty that each pregnancy will be successful and result in a healthy baby.

And as for the bolded, I wouldn't call 9 months a "quick" process. Ask any pregnant woman and she'll tell you. Its a big burden and responsibility and is by no means a walk in the park.
The baby hardly hangs around the womb for 40 weeks for the laugh - they do so because until week 23 they aren't viable. Up until week 32/34, the lungs are usually too immature to breath unaided when born.
Pregnancy is 40 weeks long for a reason.

Pete29 · 14-05-2018 4:58pm

Sin City wrote: »

Im on the fence too , but leaning towards yes

Obviously I would be against abortion on demand and I still think its a life

On the other hand my beliefs should not infringe on someone else freedom

I can only think logically and philiosphically

Im never going to be the one in this position but my daughter might

So im probably going to vote Yes

Do you believe you have the right to your life? If so, when did that right begin?

Pete29 · 14-05-2018 5:00pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

1 in 3 pregnancies naturally miscarry before week 12.
That's why most people don't announce they are expecting - too much chance something could go wrong. There is also the risk of stillbirth and FFA, so its not just a case of it being a certainty that each pregnancy will be successful and result in a healthy baby.

And as for the bolded, I wouldn't call 9 months a "quick" process. Ask any pregnant woman and she'll tell you. Its a big burden and responsibility and is by no means a walk in the park.
The baby hardly hangs around the womb for 40 weeks for the laugh - they do so because until week 23 they aren't viable. Up until week 32/34, the lungs are usually too immature to breath unaided when born.
Pregnancy is 40 weeks long for a reason.

It's incredibly quick considering the complexity of human biology. A baby will die outside the womb if not nurtured and looked after.

SusieBlue · 14-05-2018 5:00pm

Pete29 wrote: »

Do you believe you have the right to your life? If so, when did that right begin?

When he was born. They give you a certificate to commemorate the occasion and everything!

Potential people should not be given rights at the expense of born, living citizens, unless the living citizen is happy to do so. It shouldn't even be up for discussion.

14-05-2018 5:02pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I listened to a woman on Newstalk one morning last week being interviewed about how she may vote in the referendum, she said she would be voting no.

Asked if she would like to state her reasons for intending to do so she stated that a foetus was a human life. She was pressed on this by a yes campaigner, but she made the analogy that (forgive me if this isn't word for word) that a foetus had a heartbeat, and if someone can be officially pronounced dead due to a lack of a heartbeat, why did this not apply to a foetus?

The yes campaigner was stuck for words tbh.

I had an ectopic pregnancy. The embryo, which it was at the time, around 7 weeks pregnant, also had a heartbeat.
It would have killed me.
So, I don't see what a heartbeat has to do with it?

Pete29 · 14-05-2018 5:02pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I would ask my friend what they CHOOSE.

Human embryo can only become a living person in the presence of an accepting body. The woman chooses to not be that body.

So it's ok because you say so or because someone choose to say so? Not an argument. It is a living being in the first place. It will develop further when not killed on a whim.

SusieBlue · 14-05-2018 5:03pm

Pete29 wrote: »

It's incredibly quick considering the complexity of human biology. A baby will die outside the womb if not nurtured and looked after.

Yes, but the difference is that any consenting adult can nurture and look after a baby.
Unfortunately, only the pregnant woman can gestate the pregnancy. We don't yet have technology to transfer a pregnancy to another woman and we don't have artificial wombs.

Do you not think its a BIG ask, to require someone to gestate a pregnancy against their will, and indeed, give birth to and raise a child they do not want, just so your own personal morals on the issue are upheld? Especially when they might disagree with your viewpoint?
Are you not expecting a lot of strangers you will never meet whose circumstances you do not know?

Do you think that forcing that viewpoint (and subsequent pregnancy and baby) on society is in the best interests of women and babies?

14-05-2018 5:05pm

Pete29 wrote: »

The vast vast vast majority of pregnancies are consensual. We all know the main biological function of sex is reproduction. We all know there is a possibility of pregnancy when we have sex. We accept that risk when we consent to sex. Therefore, we consent to the possibility of pregnancy when we consent to sex. The choice comes before conception, not after.

I do not consent to the possibility of pregnancy. That's why I take every precaution I can not to get pregnant.
In your world, do people have sex just for procreation?
In mine it's part of a loving full relationship, one where we don't want children.

Pete29 · 14-05-2018 5:05pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

When he was born. They give you a certificate to commemorate the occasion and everything!

Potential people should not be given rights at the expense of born, living citizens, unless the living citizen is happy to do so. It shouldn't even be up for discussion.

Would it be ok to kill a baby 10 minutes before it's born then?

Sin City · 14-05-2018 5:05pm

Sin City wrote: »

Im on the fence too , but leaning towards yes

Obviously I would be against abortion on demand and I still think its a life

On the other hand my beliefs should not infringe on someone else freedom

I can only think logically and philiosphically

Im never going to be the one in this position but my daughter might

So im probably going to vote Yes

PS Im also an atheist , not that my lack of beliefs should be a factor

14-05-2018 5:05pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I had an ectopic pregnancy. The embryo, which it was at the time, around 7 weeks pregnant, also had a heartbeat.
It would have killed me.
So, I don't see what a heartbeat has to do with it?

I "liked" your post for the meaning it conveys and, obviously, not the experience which you had to endure

runawaybishop · 14-05-2018 5:06pm

Pete29 wrote: »

Would it be ok to kill a baby 10 minutes before it's born then?

Is that what is being proposed?

SusieBlue · 14-05-2018 5:07pm

Pete29 wrote: »

Would it be ok to kill a baby 10 minutes before it's born then?

No, of course not. At that gestation the pregnancy would be terminated, not the baby. Its called an induction.

Edited because I misread the question.

James Brown · 14-05-2018 5:07pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yes, but the difference is that any consenting adult can nurture and look after a baby.
Unfortunately, only the pregnant woman can gestate the pregnancy. We don't yet have technology to transfer a pregnancy to another woman and we don't have artificial wombs.

Do you not think its a BIG ask, to require someone to gestate a pregnancy against their will, and indeed, give birth to and raise a child they do not want, just so your own personal morals on the issue are upheld?

Do you think that forcing that viewpoint (and subsequent pregnancy and baby) on society is in the best interests of women and babies?

If poor, it would be no more than a few years before the kid would be accused of wanting everything for nothing, a forever home, not wanting to work etc. etc. a bane on the very conservative society forced it into existence. Not to mention the menace of the single mother...

sally cinnamon89 · 14-05-2018 5:08pm

Pete29 wrote: »

Would it be ok to kill a baby 10 minutes before it's born then?

Picking the points you would like?

Pete29 · 14-05-2018 5:09pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I do not consent to the possibility of pregnancy. That's why I take every precaution I can not to get pregnant.
In your world, do people have sex just for procreation?
In mine it's part of a loving full relationship, one where we don't want children.

You know pregnancy is consequence of sex and there is a possibility and risk of pregnancy. That's why you use contraception right? You also know contraception is not risk free. There is still a small chance of pregnancy, but you accept this risk because you choose to have sex anyway. Ergo, you and you're partner are responsible for the pregnancy. You can't divorce sex from the possibility of pregnancy and the reproductive power you have.

SusieBlue · 14-05-2018 5:09pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If poor, it would be no more than a few years before the kid would be accused of wanting everything for nothing, a forever home, not wanting to work etc. etc. a bane on the very conservative society forced it into existence. Not to mention the menace of the single mother...

That's the irony of it. Pro-life but they don't give a monkeys about them as soon as they're born.
Many, many of those who are staunchly pro-life are strangely completely against social welfare, against social housing, against regeneration investments in disadvantaged areas. Its bizarre.

Sin City · 14-05-2018 5:10pm

Pete29 wrote: »

Do you believe you have the right to your life? If so, when did that right begin?

I believe the fetus has a right to life
the question is does that right supersede the mother?

Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Comments