nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

robarmstrong

Nice dodge.

I particular like the part where you avoided the part where you contradicted yourself, now that’s convenient.

Say a prayer for all of us here, it won’t do us any good as it would appear (due to us being in a forum for Athiests & Agnostics) your beliefs are lost upon us.

Charles Ingles

robarmstrong wrote: »

Nice dodge.

I particular like the part where you avoided the part where you contradicted yourself, now that’s convenient.

Say a prayer for all of us here, it won’t do us any good as it would appear (due to us being in a forum for Athiests & Agnostics) your beliefs are lost upon us.

You be surprised how many people have the same view as myself

volchitsa

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I personally wouldn't encourage any member of my family to have an abortion under any circumstances.
But I wouldn't expect everyone to live by the Catholic ethos that I do

So does that mean you voted to remove the 8th amendment?
If so, fair play to you. I have no problem with the idea of someone being against abortion personally, my objection is when people want the law to make everyone else do as they feel they should.

Charles Ingles

volchitsa wrote: »

So does that mean you voted to remove the 8th amendment?
If so, fair play to you. I have no problem with the idea of someone being against abortion personally, my objection is when people want the law to make everyone else do as they feel they should.

If I didn't vote for the repeal of the the eight amendment, it's one of the saddest political decision I've ever seen the state take

volchitsa

Charles Ingles wrote: »

If I didn't vote for the repeal of the the eight amendment, it's one of the saddest political decision I've ever seen the state take

But you just said you wouldn't force people to live by your Catholic ethos ie not to have an abortion. That's exactly what the 8th amendment was meant to do. How do you reconcile those two contradictory arguments?

volchitsa

Charles Ingles wrote: »

You be surprised how many people have the same view as myself

If as it appears you are now saying you voted to keep the 8th, then no, what surprised me was just how many people voted to remove it. I wasn't expecting anything like that much of a mandate.

Though I suspect that only shows how much so many of us, including myself, were fooled by prolife into taking their word for it that they still had strong support in some quarters when in fact it had dwindled away without the media or politicians really noticing.

SusieBlue

From reading this mornings posts it appears I’ve accidentally time travelled back to May 2018. Someone please help me.
I don’t think I can do the referendum all over again!

volchitsa

SusieBlue wrote: »

From reading this mornings posts it appears I’ve accidentally time travelled back to May 2018. Someone please help me.
I don’t think I can do the referendum all over again!

I know. It's like one of those anxiety dreams, isn't it, where you find yourself back in school about to take an exam in a subject you thought you would never have to open a book for ever again!

Think of the relief when you wake up though and realize we really don't have to go through it all again.

Charles Ingles

SusieBlue wrote: »

From reading this mornings posts it appears I’ve accidentally time travelled back to May 2018. Someone please help me.
I don’t think I can do the referendum all over again!

So people don't have a right to an opinion.?
Also public opinion is changing I'd love to see another referendum based on truth with an unbiased media

volchitsa

Charles Ingles wrote: »

So people don't have a right to an opinion?

But I thought you were claiming that it was facts, not opinions?
You're entitled to an opinion, but not to pretend the facts are behind you, because unlike America and indeed the UK, we had an organized debate where both sides were given space to put their arguments, backed up by facts when they had them.

One noticeable result was that the anti abortion side constantly got caught out lying, so apparently they know they don't have the facts on their side. And they didn't manage to convince anywhere near half the population that they did.

So repeating all the old arguments is fine, if that's what you want to do. As much as you like - in your own spaces. Because nobody else has to listen to you. We did that, and we decided we don't believe you.

Also public opinion is changing I'd love to see another referendum based on truth with an unbiased media

Any evidence that it's changing or is this just wishful thinking?

(The claim that the media was biased is odd, since the referendum campaign gave strictly regulated talking times to each side. And even before that, Iona and others were constantly on the media. They kept sticking their feet in their mouths, but that's nobody else's fault but theirs. So how would you "unbias" the media, exactly?)

SusieBlue

Charles Ingles wrote: »

So people don't have a right to an opinion.?
Also public opinion is changing I'd love to see another referendum based on truth with an unbiased media

You can have an opinion on whatever you want so long as that opinion doesn’t restrict my healthcare or impact on my life.
Abortions are not and will never be compulsory so you will never have to worry about being forced to have one.

Feel free to disagree with abortion, feel free to think its wrong & judge those who procure them, but don’t dare try to force that opinion onto me when I completely and fundamentally disagree with you.

I support your right to choose differently, I don’t support you being able to control other people’s choices. It’s none of your business.

aloyisious

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I personally wouldn't encourage any member of my family to have an abortion under any circumstances.
But I wouldn't expect everyone to live by the Catholic ethos that I do

With reference to your position of agreement with women being allowed abort a feotus in the cases of FFA and Rape, how do you view their taking and using that option when it comes to religion and Catholicism; does it put them outside the pale forever and ever or just till they confess to what they did in a confessional box?

Does your position not put you in a quandary when it comes to alignment with your faith belief?

On the issue of an unbiased media, may I remind you that the church itself has branches and adherents within the media and publicises newspapers with correspondence and opinion pages ensuring it gets its particular messages across to the public with the intent of aligning public opinion and voting intents to those of the church.

Kidchameleon

I think if your going to click on a thread about abortion you need to expect a discussion about, you know, abortion!

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think if your going to click on a thread about abortion you need to expect a discussion about, you know, abortion!

Sure, but when we're onto the fourth thread and the conversation has been going on for literally years, it's not unreasonable to expect the discussion to have moved on a little, and not have stuff that has been proven to be at best unprovable and self contradictory opinion (like the simplistic "abortion is killing/murder") throw back in as though all those other posts had never even existed.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think if your going to click on a thread about abortion you need to expect a discussion about, you know, abortion!

Well, as input from people to the debate here has proven, the debate is a house of many chambers, so to speak.

Cabaal

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Also I think sex should be kept within the confines of a loving relationship ideally marriage makes it even more special.

So using your logic you see over 40% of baby's born in Ireland as less special and you look down on them?

It's language like yours that lost the no side the marriage ref and repeal the 8th.

UNCIVIL TEXT DELETED.

robindch

^^^ Yet again, no uncivil personal comments please.

Charles Ingles

No need to get personal I haven't insulted anybody personally, but it seems it's ok because I'm pro life.
I won't be engaging in debate on the subject any further

Igotadose

volchitsa wrote: »

Sure, but when we're onto the fourth thread and the conversation has been going on for literally years, it's not unreasonable to expect the discussion to have moved on a little, and not have stuff that has been proven to be at best unprovable and self contradictory opinion (like the simplistic "abortion is killing/murder") throw back in as though all those other posts had never even existed.

It does seem like we need a 'is that the best you've got' emoticon? Here and other forums. Perhaps forum bingo - come up with a bingo board full of the usual refuted positions, when a row is filled in, give the poster a reward.

aloyisious

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No need to get personal I haven't insulted anybody personally, but it seems it's ok because I'm pro life.
I won't be engaging in debate on the subject any further

I'd prefer if it was a perfect world but it isn't, hence the need for abortions as you've conceded to on two grounds. I get the urge to ask how far people go when they say they agree with abortion on some specific grounds and also say they are Pro-life and of a religious belief that forbids abortion. I understand how awkward the question is when it comes to the rulebook. There does appear, on the face of it, to be a contradiction worth explaining as sometimes its not possible to have one's cake and eat it.

If such persons said that they understand the complex situations that nature imposes on humans versus those imposed by religious strictures, they allowed that the strictures are blind to the human touch needed and were prepared to bypass the obdurate then there'd be no questions necessary on how they can marry up the contrary positions they seem to hold, just an acceptance that what humanity requires is an ignoring of the rulebook.

Kidchameleon

I wonder if the "clump of cells" argument is a subconscious attempt to have ones cake and eat it. We were all a clump of cells at one stage. I get that a cancer tumor is a clump of cells too but not one that will form a human. A clump of cells in a woman's womb is a special kind of clump, one that is undeniably alive and growing.

eviltwin

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I wonder if the "clump of cells" argument is a subconscious attempt to have ones cake and eat it. We were all a clump of cells at one stage. I get that a cancer tumor is a clump of cells too but not one that will form a human. A clump of cells in a woman's womb is a special kind of clump, one that is undeniably alive and growing.

But it's not a baby, it's not a child and it is not of greater importance than the woman hosting it. It would be great if all pregnancies were welcome but they aren't and I'm glad we have finally given women options here at home. It's a personal decision and the privacy and respect of the woman involved should be paramount.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I wonder if the "clump of cells" argument is a subconscious attempt to have ones cake and eat it. We were all a clump of cells at one stage. I get that a cancer tumor is a clump of cells too but not one that will form a human. A clump of cells in a woman's womb is a special kind of clump, one that is undeniably alive and growing.

So is a tape worm, my opinion of a pre 12 week (maybe even beyond) is of a parasite, reliable and feeding on the host to survive. Controversial i know but that's my personal opinion.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I wonder if the "clump of cells" argument is a subconscious attempt to have ones cake and eat it. We were all a clump of cells at one stage. I get that a cancer tumor is a clump of cells too but not one that will form a human. A clump of cells in a woman's womb is a special kind of clump, one that is undeniably alive and growing.

Perhaps you should consider that sometimes the special clump of cells is not undeniably growing but is in a failing mode where it comes to nature and see that it would be cruel and unnatural to insist that A. the foetus must stay "growing" in the pregnant woman's womb til it is born, and B. the woman must be obliged to continue with the pregnancy til a birth occurred at the ninth month.

Charles Ingles allowed for the eventuality of abortion in cases of FFA. To insist on the continuance of the pregnancy in the knowledge of the eventual fatal outcome after birth is surely trying to have the cake and eat it at a distinctly conscious level. Would that insistence be something you would be compliant with on the belief-basis that the clump of cells was something special? Edit:add-on. I accept that humans can also desire to have things their own way in the possible way your quote seems to indicate [if you are talking about sexual fulfilment with the desire to avoid facing up to a possible natural outcome]. however, there are alternative ways to avoid such an eventuality.

BTW, Charles. I am not using you as a debate-device across to Kidchameleon, just pointing out that people who have stated an opposition to abortion at a personal Christian level also regretfully accept that sometimes an abortion is necessary regardless as to how special the foetus is regarded.

Kidchameleon

aloyisious wrote: »

Perhaps you should consider that sometimes the special clump of cells is not undeniably growing but is in a failing mode where it comes to nature and see that it would be cruel and unnatural to insist that A. the foetus must stay "growing" in the pregnant woman's womb til it is born, and B. the woman must be obliged to continue with the pregnancy til a birth occurred at the ninth month.

Charles Ingles allowed for the eventuality of abortion in cases of FFA. To insist on the continuance of the pregnancy in the knowledge of the eventual fatal outcome after birth is surely trying to have the cake and eat it at a distinctly conscious level. Would that insistence be something you would be compliant with on the belief-basis that the clump of cells was something special? Edit:add-on. I accept that humans can also desire to have things their own way in the possible way your quote seems to indicate [if you are talking about sexual fulfilment with the desire to avoid facing up to a possible natural outcome]. however, there are alternative ways to avoid such an eventuality.

BTW, Charles. I am not using you as a debate-device across to Kidchameleon, just pointing out that people who have stated an opposition to abortion at a personal Christian level also regretfully accept that sometimes an abortion is necessary regardless as to how special the foetus is regarded.

If you read my posts today you would see that I am in complete agreement with you. I believe a woman should have every right to end a pregnancy. I voted in favor of legalizing abortion despite believing that it is the termination of a life. I understand the contradictory nature of what I am saying, abortion is such a fascinating and that it leads to such contradictions. I am simply trying to express that I do not hide behind the clump of cells argument or the "its not murder" argument. It may be a clump of cells or it may turn out that a 12 week old fetus is conscious on some level, we don't know yet. Either way, a woman should have a choice. It may not be murder in the legal sense of the word but in my opinion, it is a form of murder.

I keep getting taken out of context and misrepresented. I feel like I have to keep explaining my beliefs on abortion. It is possible to be pro choice but still hold the belief the abortion is not an ideal situation...

How about this for a scenario....

We invent an artificial womb that allows a fertilized egg to grow from insemination to full term. A fetus is growing in said machine for the last 12 weeks. Should the father of that fetus have the right to turn off the machine, meaning the fetus will die, without the consent of the mother? Should the mother have the same right ie. to turn off the machine without the consent of the father?

uptherebels

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If you read my posts today you would see that I am in complete agreement with you. I believe a woman should have every right to end a pregnancy. I voted in favor of legalizing abortion despite believing that it is the termination of a life. I understand the contradictory nature of what I am saying, abortion is such a fascinating and that it leads to such contradictions. I am simply trying to express that I do not hide behind the clump of cells argument or the "its not murder" argument. It may be a clump of cells or it may turn out that a 12 week old fetus is conscious on some level, we don't know yet. Either way, a woman should have a choice. It may not be murder in the legal sense of the word but in my opinion, it is a form of murder.

I keep getting taken out of context and misrepresented. I feel like I have to keep explaining my beliefs on abortion. It is possible to be pro choice but still hold the belief the abortion is not an ideal situation...

How about this for a scenario....

We invent an artificial womb that allows a fertilized egg to grow from insemination to full term. A fetus is growing in said machine for the last 12 weeks. Should the father of that fetus have the right to turn off the machine, meaning the fetus will die, without the consent of the mother? Should the mother have the same right ie. to turn off the machine without the consent of the father?

I don't really see anyone "hiding" behind those arguements at all.
What information do you hope to glean from that situation? As it isn't comparable to anything in reality.

Cabaal

Since we're now moved away from the reality comparisons here's another situation.

A human male becomes impregnated by an alien and becomes host to their off spring (think. Aliens I suppose), the alien sees any attempt to remove its off spring as the worst thing in the world. The alien race also requires a host in this manner to have its off spring.

Does the human have a right to not be a host to the alien off spring?

Kidchameleon

Yes your all hilarious. My situation was intended to inspire discussion not p*isstaking (which I suspect is an attempt to avoid the really difficult dilemma I am pondering and yet another example of people on this forum hiding away from reality) Humor is often used to help us deal with the really difficult realities of life.

In the not too distant future we will have artificial wombs, so my scenario is one that will probably actually to pass one day. There are already sheep growing from gestation to maturity in artificial wombs.

So does anyone want to take a stab at my fictitious dilemma?

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Yes your all hilarious. My situation was intended to inspire discussion not p*isstaking (which I suspect is an attempt to avoid the really difficult dilemma I am pondering and yet another example of people on this forum hiding away from reality) Humor is often used to help us deal with the really difficult realities of life.

In the not too distant future we will have artificial wombs, so my scenario is one that will probably actually to pass one day. There are already sheep growing from gestation to maturity in artificial wombs.

So does anyone want to take a stab at my fictitious dilemma?

But it's not difficult at all. It's comical that you think it might be.

The reason the pregnant woman has more say over her pregnancy than the man is because currently her body is an essential requirement. If the fetus was already in an artificial womb then she would be in the same position as the father. No more and no less. What's hard to understand about that?

Now, off you go and tell us why the alien should be allowed to force the human male to gestate its offspring for it, no matter how important that is to the alien?

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

If the fetus was already in an artificial womb then she would be in the same position as the father. No more and no less.

So in a situation like that, the father could turn off the machine without consent from the mother and the mother could turn off the machine without the consent of the father, what do you think?