Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Calina wrote: »

It isn't. The question is whether the pregnant woman's life is equally important or exceeds the importance of an unborn potential. Woman's life not choice.

But when you have abortion for any reason at all, then it is all about choice being put before the life of the unborn.
Which is fine for those who think the unborn is not a life but for those who say they really believe it actually is a life (as in the post I quoted earlier and lots of others I've seen and indeed what Leo has said he also believes), I don't understand why choice is more important.
That's why I'm against abortion on demand. I will never personally believe my choice for any reason is more important than someone elses life.

blanch152 wrote: »

The opposite of saying that a woman is not just for breeding is to say that a woman is just for breeding. If the latter is the type of attitude that you subscribe to, I don't know what to say.

I have never thought a woman is just for breeding. That is the exact wording someone used on another 8th thread. It certainly doesn't mean I think the opposite is true. That's complete nonsense.

These women have an intense distain towards children and any future children they could have, they seem to have no capacity to love them. That's the thing I'm finding strange, is the capacity to love and take yourself from number one spot, is missing for many people. It's the self centred and proud people.

I

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the nature of representative democracy. If you don't trust politicians, then the logical conclusion is to scrap the Oireachtas and move the entire body of legislation into the Constitution, which would be a self-evidently stupid thing to do.

Complex questions of hard cases in law don't belong in the Constitution. That's what legislation is for.

False dilemma. Not trusting politicians on this or other issues doesnt mean I have a better alternaitive. I trust politicians can be held in line by the electorate globally without supposing them held in line on each issue

blanch152 wrote: »

The opposite of saying that a woman is not just for breeding is to say that a woman is just for breeding. If the latter is the type of attitude that you subscribe to, I don't know what to say.

Just for breeding ? Quite a few of us manage to live full lives and do all that men do and bring forth children too ! Look around you, we're everywhere.

Junadl wrote: »

I have come across women on these forums who sound like they hate kids. So if anyone is nasty they are. They have said they aren't there just for breeding which is a nasty way to look at bringing a life into the world.

Do you believe because a woman doesn't want to have kids, she hates them?
& even if someone does hate kids, so what? What does it matter whether they like kids or not? That doesn't make them nasty.
Just because kids are the centre of your world, doesn't mean they are for everyone else.

bubblypop wrote: »

Do you believe because a woman doesn't want to have kids, she hates them?
& even if someone does hate kids, so what? What does it matter whether they like kids or not? That doesn't make them nasty.
Just because kids are the centre of your world, doesn't mean they are for everyone else.

I had the misfortune to interact with a woman on an 8th thread who said she doesn't like children or babies, who informed me many people have the same view. She had this very strong view that women aren't just for breeding, with an undercurrent of contempt.

I think there is a certain coolness or chilliness to these attitudes. That's my opinion.

Calina

Mrsmum wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

It isn't. The question is whether the pregnant woman's life is equally important or exceeds the importance of an unborn potential. Woman's life not choice.

But when you have abortion for any reason at all, then it is all about choice being put before the life of the unborn.
Which is fine for those who think the unborn is not a life but for those who say they really believe it actually is a life (as in the post I quoted earlier and lots of others I've seen and indeed what Leo has said he also believes), I don't understand why choice is more important.
That's why I'm against abortion on demand. I will never personally believe my choice for any reason is more important than someone elses life.

If you have an abortion for any reason, you are putting your life ahead of your pregnancy.

You very much believe your choice is more important than someone else's life specifically because you are against abortion. Your choice. Someone else's life. But you do not care about that someone if she is born or pregnant.

Junadl wrote: »

I had the misfortune to interact with a woman on an 8th thread who said she doesn't like children or babies, who informed me many people have the same view. She had this very strong view that women aren't just for breeding, with an undercurrent of contempt.

I think there is a certain coolness or chilliness to these attitudes. That's my opinion.

You don't agree? Women are not just for breeding.
Are you just judging women who don't want children?

SusieBlue

Junadl wrote: »

I had the misfortune to interact with a woman on an 8th thread who said she doesn't like children or babies, who informed me many people have the same view. She had this very strong view that women aren't just for breeding, with an undercurrent of contempt.

I think there is a certain coolness or chilliness to these attitudes. That's my opinion.

Sorry but she’s entitled to feel that way if she wants to, it’s also ironic that you are judging her for feeling like this yet expecting not to be judged yourself for your own feelings on the matter.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with not liking and not wanting to have kids.
I think many women in previous generations felt the same but due to different societal norms, they still ended up having kids.
It’s not a new thing by any means.

And to play devils advocate, do you really think that a woman with such little interest in kids should be forced into parenthood should she accidentally become pregnant?
Do you think women like that make good mothers?
Is it in the best interests of the child?

bubblypop wrote: »

You don't agree? Women are not just for breeding.
Are you just judging women who don't want children?

I think you are twisting things.

If a woman doesn't want kids that's up to her but when the woman creates a life then she must be responsible for that life. If having a baby interferes with her lifestyle does that mean the baby should lose their life? Is that the shallow, hollow society you want to live in?
Are kids really that bad holy moly like. Why so seriously adamant to not want kids. Don't make them then!

The government can't be your parent saying well you've made a baby, we'll just kill it and you can skip off into the sunset.

blanch152

Mrsmum wrote: »

But when you have abortion for any reason at all, then it is all about choice being put before the life of the unborn.
Which is fine for those who think the unborn is not a life but for those who say they really believe it actually is a life (as in the post I quoted earlier and lots of others I've seen and indeed what Leo has said he also believes), I don't understand why choice is more important.
That's why I'm against abortion on demand. I will never personally believe my choice for any reason is more important than someone elses life.

Nonsense.

The problem with the 8th is that it gives an equal right to life to the unborn as well as to the mother. They are not equal. One has the potential to life, the other has the reality of life.

Therefore their rights are differentially balanced.

It is not about choice, it is about the appropriate balance between differing rights.

Junadl wrote: »

I think you are twisting things.

If a woman doesn't want kids that's up to her but when the woman creates a life then she must be responsible for that life. If having a baby interferes with her lifestyle does that mean the baby should lose their life? Is that the shallow, hollow society you want to live in?
Are kids really that bad holy moly like. Why so seriously adamant to not want kids. Don't make them then!

The government can't be your parent saying well you've made a baby, we'll just kill it and you can skip off into the sunset.

Don't want them, dont make them?
I think that's part of the issue isn't it, people can do everything in their power to not make them, but not all contraception is 100%. But you know that!
& you really are judging women whether they want kids or not!

The government actually do say that, the right to travel for abortion is enshrined in the constitution.

Calina wrote: »

If you have an abortion for any reason, you are putting your life ahead of your pregnancy.

You very much believe your choice is more important than someone else's life specifically because you are against abortion. Your choice. Someone else's life. But you do not care about that someone if she is born or pregnant.

Imo there is a big difference between a life being at risk and a lifestyle being at risk. Abortion for any reason addresses the latter to the detriment of the former. Detriment in this case being death.

(Again this doesn't matter if you don't consider it a life at all but it's the attitude of those who believe it is I'm wondering about.)

bubblypop wrote: »

Don't want them, dont make them?
I think that's part of the issue isn't it, people can do everything in their power to not make them, but not all contraception is 100%. But you know that!
& you really are judging women whether they want kids or not!

The government actually do say that, the right to travel for abortion is enshrined in the constitution.

Yes if you don't want a child so much then do not take the risk. If it fills you with dread and fear to have a baby/raise a child then don't engage in the activity which may make that happen.

I mean taking ecstasy is absolutely amazing but you are also taking the risk of death if the pill is contaminated.

You must be responsible for yourself. If you become pregnant it's your responsibility to look after your child. Nobody forced you to become pregnant.

Why do you think hospitals should stretch resources to accommodate a lot of women who decide they don't want to take responsibility? Hospitals seem to already be at breaking point, people on trolleys, huge waiting lists etc

blanch152 wrote: »

Nonsense.

The problem with the 8th is that it gives an equal right to life to the unborn as well as to the mother. They are not equal. One has the potential to life, the other has the reality of life.

Therefore their rights are differentially balanced.

It is not about choice, it is about the appropriate balance between differing rights.

But now you have taken the word 'choice' out of this when that word was precisely the word I was discussing and which I raised in my original point. If I have heard the word 'choice' once in this debate, I have heard it a million times. Clue = prochoice. Yet now when it suits, you tell me it's not about choice at all.

antiskeptic

bubblypop wrote: »

Don't want them, dont make them?
I think that's part of the issue isn't it, people can do everything in their power to not make them, but not all contraception is 100%. But you know that!
& you really are judging women whether they want kids or not!

Whats the combined efficiency of the pill and condom, properly utilised? 99.99%

It depends on how bad you dont want to get pregnant when it boils down to it.

You don't get 100,000 failure-of-contraceptive abortions annually on the UK because the contraceptives themselves actually failed.

People have an out, and they'll do so much. Its called abortion.

100,000 other UK abortions p/a don't cite contraceptive failure. I dont suppose rape/ffa/serious medical issues to that extent. Do you?

Pete29 wrote: »

You know for a fact the function of sex is reproduction. Any consensual engagement in sex is accepting risk of pregnancy and therefore consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. You can kick and scream like a spoiled child all you want, but there's no escaping this fact.

Wasn’t the point about a partner agreeing to sex with a condom and then slipping it off without their partners knowledge or consent? You seem to be missing the point here.

This response pretty much sums up the modern liberal attitude towards sex and pregnancy. It is an inherently self centered, narcissistic and irresponsible attitude in which people believe they are free to do whatever they wish, but they are not responsible for the consequences of their actions, even when cautioned before hand.

supposing this slut-shaming narrative holds and all those women are irresponsible drug crazed roving sex machines for pleasure: what good is it going to do someone to force someone like that to be a parent?

Implantation is the moment when the fertilized embryo obtains it's right to life because it is now on track to becoming a new born infant. Not before, because you can fertilize an embryo in a petry dish and it won't become a human infant.

So, by that logic, the morning after pill, the 28-day pill, and several other methods of contraception should be illegal. But they are not. Why do you suppose that is?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whats the combined efficiency of the pill and condom, properly utilised? 99.99%

It depends on how bad you dont want to get pregnant when it boils down to it.

You don't get 100,000 failure-of-contraceptive abortions annually on the UK because the contraceptives themselves actually failed.

People have an out, and they'll do so much. Its called abortion.

100,000 other UK abortions p/a don't cite contraceptive failure. I dont suppose rape/ffa/serious medical issues to that extent. Do you?

Where. Where in the world do you get that statistic from. Calling mega bullish!t on that one.

LirW

I find it absolutely hilarious when people think that it's just an easy peasy walk in the park to abstain from sexual activity.
Are people aware that the lack of intimacy is one of the leading reasons why couples drift apart and split? The vast majority, especially in a relationship needs sex, you need it physically and mentally. The reason why people are taking contraception is mainly because they don't want to have children. Tubal ligations are pretty much non-accessible for a woman that never had children or under 35. Jesus, I was even denied having one when we talked about the C-Section of my daughter, who's my second and I got turned down by all 3 doctors I asked.
Why did I want it? Because I'm done with family planning.
Having no sex would put a serious strain on our relationship, it's a vital part of it even if it's sometimes just once in a while. I'm taking contraception because he can't get a vasectomy yet, I can't get a tubal ligation.

If the "well, take the responsibility when your contraception fails"-brigade wants to live in a society where people don't have sex, have fun, off you go an travel to parts of India or Pakistan where there's such an overload of men that can't find a woman and therefore not having sex and have a look on how heavily it impacts society as a whole.
It's not just a simple issue of don't fkuc. That doesn't work and has proven before in many societys where sex is a total taboo that it doesn't work.

Junadl wrote: »

Yes if you don't want a child so much then do not take the risk. If it fills you with dread and fear to have a baby/raise a child then don't engage in the activity which may make that happen.

I mean taking ecstasy is absolutely amazing but you are also taking the risk of death if the pill is contaminated.

You must be responsible for yourself. If you become pregnant it's your responsibility to look after your child. Nobody forced you to become pregnant.

Why do you think hospitals should stretch resources to accommodate a lot of women who decide they don't want to take responsibility? Hospitals seem to already be at breaking point, people on trolleys, huge waiting lists etc

You only have sex for procreation then yes?
I responsible for myself, which is why I do anything I can to not get pregnant. I have sex as part of a loving healthy relationship, do you suggest that me & my partner wait until the menopause?
& you think that women getting abortions will put too much pressure on health services? Really? More pressure than 4000 extra women giving birth every year?

LirW wrote: »

I find it absolutely hilarious when people think that it's just an easy peasy walk in the park to abstain from sexual activity.
Are people aware that the lack of intimacy is one of the leading reasons why couples drift apart and split? The vast majority, especially in a relationship needs sex, you need it physically and mentally. The reason why people are taking contraception is mainly because they don't want to have children. Tubal ligations are pretty much non-accessible for a woman that never had children or under 35. Jesus, I was even denied having one when we talked about the C-Section of my daughter, who's my second and I got turned down by all 3 doctors I asked.
Why did I want it? Because I'm done with family planning.
Having no sex would put a serious strain on our relationship, it's a vital part of it even if it's sometimes just once in a while. I'm taking contraception because he can't get a vasectomy yet, I can't get a tubal ligation.

If the "well, take the responsibility when your contraception fails"-brigade wants to live in a society where people don't have sex, have fun, off you go an travel to parts of India or Pakistan where there's such an overload of men that can't find a woman and therefore not having sex and have a look on how heavily it impacts society as a whole.
It's not just a simple issue of don't fkuc. That doesn't work and has proven before in many societys where sex is a total taboo that it doesn't work.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110729-male-contraceptive-injection-works-but-side-effects-halt-trial/

Hadn't even thought of this. If a woman doesn't want kids have yourself sterilised. If a man doesn't want kids same applies. Get it done privately if you're saying it's not generally done before a certain age. That would be perfect as then you wouldn't make an innocent life.

“Nobody forced you to become pregnant.“

There’s No pretending that rape doesn’t exist again

bubblypop wrote: »

You only have sex for procreation then yes?
I responsible for myself, which is why I do anything I can to not get pregnant. I have sex as part of a loving healthy relationship, do you suggest that me & my partner wait until the menopause?
& you think that women getting abortions will put too much pressure on health services? Really? More pressure than 4000 extra women giving birth every year?

No obviously we all have sex for enjoyment, it is one of the greatest pleasures in life. However we must be aware of what we are doing and that what we are doing has an effect.

Would it not make sense to have tubes tied to avoid the risk of pregnancy?

Junadl wrote: »

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110729-male-contraceptive-injection-works-but-side-effects-halt-trial/

Hadn't even thought of this. If a woman doesn't want kids have yourself sterilised. If a man doesn't want kids same applies. Get it done privately if you're saying it's not generally done before a certain age. That would be perfect as then you wouldn't make an innocent life.

I know a guy who many years after his vasectomy, got his second wife pregnant, with twins.
Nothing is 100%

blanch152

Junadl wrote: »

Why do you think hospitals should stretch resources to accommodate a lot of women who decide they don't want to take responsibility? Hospitals seem to already be at breaking point, people on trolleys, huge waiting lists etc

Actually, if women have abortions, it frees up hospital space as they won't be giving birth, which takes up much more hospital time.

Also, they won't be bringing another life into the world who will fill up hospital time and resources, especially if it is a foetal abnormality that is the reason for the abortion.

So if you are truly interested in saving hospital resources, you would be forcing abortions on women. Thankfully, nobody thinks in straight lines like that.

However, I have to give you credit. Of all the arguments put forward by the NO side, the idea that it will cost hospital resources must be the silliest of them all.

Junadl wrote: »

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110729-male-contraceptive-injection-works-but-side-effects-halt-trial/

Hadn't even thought of this. If a woman doesn't want kids have yourself sterilised. If a man doesn't want kids same applies. Get it done privately if you're saying it's not generally done before a certain age. That would be perfect as then you wouldn't make an innocent life.

You hear what you want to hear: doctors refuse to perform tubal ligation on women who are “too young” or “don’t have enough kids”

January was refused tubal ligation after her 4th child and 2nd cesarian. The doctors insisted there was always the possibility she would divorce the husband she was happily married to, with 4 children, and that she would want to remarry and start a whole new family. These are real obstacles today.

Junadl wrote: »

No obviously we all have sex for enjoyment, it is one of the greatest pleasures in life. However we must be aware of what we are doing and that what we are doing has an effect.

Would it not make sense to have tubes tied to avoid the risk of pregnancy?

Doctors won't even talk about it!
Might change my mind according to them.......