Irish vote of gay marriage
Discussion
desolate said:
Kawasicki said:
Yeah... "thou shalt not kill“ was unworkable anyway.
Are you equating abortion with murder?Kawasicki said:
Why bring murder into the debate? I just think killing unborn humans should be considered very carefully, and that the unborn should also have rights. Is that so radical an opinion?
You brought murder into it by equating abortion with the commandment not to kill.There is a framework of legislation that sets out the law regarding abortion, so it is and has been very carefully considered.
What's wrong with that?
desolate said:
Kawasicki said:
Why bring murder into the debate? I just think killing unborn humans should be considered very carefully, and that the unborn should also have rights. Is that so radical an opinion?
You brought murder into it by equating abortion with the commandment not to kill.There is a framework of legislation that sets out the law regarding abortion, so it is and has been very carefully considered.
What's wrong with that?
How arrogant of you if you are.
Kawasicki said:
FN2TypeR said:
Small babies didn't make the case for no, religious fundos and traditionalists did.
I‘m glad someone spoke for them.Unborn children have rights in Great Britain. They have a number. However, they tend to start when the foetus is capable of being born alive, i.e. has some claim to being a 'person'.
I can see why abortion is distasteful to many, as indeed do I. I was brought up in a non-religious family but they were firm in their ideas of no abortions. However, times have moved on and I can appreciate that women's point of view might differ from that of men as they have a bigger investment.
There were a number of examples quoted in the build up. For instance the child with the unformed head that the woman had to carry to full term. Then there's the child that was conceived by way of rape. Should both these women be obliged to carry the foetus to full term? Despite having, in the main, the same moral beliefs of my family, I've no doubt that I would say that abortion in both the above circs are a woman's right.
If you disagree then I think I would find it hard to discuss with you. If you agree with me then the obvious question is what other cases would you feel would come within the scope of an allowable termination? 'Cause the line in such case must be drawn somewhere. Where would you draw yours?
A foetus is a potential person, but it is only potential.
Eric Mc said:
Are you saying women have abortions without consideration?
How arrogant of you if you are.
Do you think the availability/public acceptance of abortion has any influence on the number of abortions being carried out?How arrogant of you if you are.
If abortion was available right up to birth do you think it would still be used? Are you comfortable with that?
If I am arrogant, then you are naive.
Kawasicki said:
Eric Mc said:
Are you saying women have abortions without consideration?
How arrogant of you if you are.
Do you think the availability/public acceptance of abortion has any influence on the number of abortions being carried out?How arrogant of you if you are.
If abortion was available right up to birth do you think it would still be used? Are you comfortable with that?
If I am arrogant, then you are naive.
If you find abortion distasteful (as indeed I do) that is not of relevance. I would never chose the option for myself - not that it would ever be a choice I would have to make.
Derek Smith said:
Unborn children have rights in Great Britain. They have a number. However, they tend to start when the foetus is capable of being born alive, i.e. has some claim to being a 'person'.
Quite, they have that protection now.This made me go look to see when a foetus stops being a thing and becomes a human, I found this nugget.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Legal_and_soci...
"Use of the word fetus has been banned by the government of the United States from publication by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
I also find abortion distasteful, so I agree with you, Derek and Eric, on that.
I see the Irish yes vote as a sad decision which will allow cases such as this, where a baby was aborted at a very late stage in 2003 because of a cleft palate abnormality.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/dec/02/he...
in the meantime this no longer makes an impression on many, over 10 per year aborted for cleft palate issues alone is sickening
I see the Irish yes vote as a sad decision which will allow cases such as this, where a baby was aborted at a very late stage in 2003 because of a cleft palate abnormality.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/dec/02/he...
in the meantime this no longer makes an impression on many, over 10 per year aborted for cleft palate issues alone is sickening
Kawasicki said:
I also find abortion distasteful, so I agree with you, Derek and Eric, on that.
I see the Irish yes vote as a sad decision which will allow cases such as this, where a baby was aborted at a very late stage in 2003 because of a cleft palate abnormality.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/dec/02/he...
in the meantime this no longer makes an impression on many, over 10 per year aborted for cleft palate issues alone is sickening
The situation is that you or I who may not like abortion do not have the right to dictate to women who are facing a pregnancy that may have issues. It is not for us to make decisions in such matters - and it most definitely is not for Priests and Cardinals to be dictating to such women what they should do. The clergy can state their moral views - they are perfectly entitled to do that. But they are not entitled to have those moral views enshrined in legislation - which was the situation in Ireland.I see the Irish yes vote as a sad decision which will allow cases such as this, where a baby was aborted at a very late stage in 2003 because of a cleft palate abnormality.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/dec/02/he...
in the meantime this no longer makes an impression on many, over 10 per year aborted for cleft palate issues alone is sickening
The abortion situation in Ireland WAS already sad - and a million other negative adjectives could also be applied to it. The result of this referendum is the cessation of that particular "sadness".
Eric Mc said:
Kawasicki said:
I also find abortion distasteful, so I agree with you, Derek and Eric, on that.
I see the Irish yes vote as a sad decision which will allow cases such as this, where a baby was aborted at a very late stage in 2003 because of a cleft palate abnormality.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/dec/02/he...
in the meantime this no longer makes an impression on many, over 10 per year aborted for cleft palate issues alone is sickening
The situation is that you or I who may not like abortion do not have the right to dictate to women who are facing a pregnancy that may have issues. It is not for us to make decisions in such matters - and it most definitely is not for Priests and Cardinals to be dictating to such women what they should do. The clergy can state their moral views - they are perfectly entitled to do that. But they are not entitled to have those moral views enshrined in legislation - which was the situation in Ireland.I see the Irish yes vote as a sad decision which will allow cases such as this, where a baby was aborted at a very late stage in 2003 because of a cleft palate abnormality.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/dec/02/he...
in the meantime this no longer makes an impression on many, over 10 per year aborted for cleft palate issues alone is sickening
The abortion situation in Ireland WAS already sad - and a million other negative adjectives could also be applied to it. The result of this referendum is the cessation of that particular "sadness".
Kawasicki said:
Every member of society should be involved with the protection of those who can't defend themselves. It is a moral obligation. Religion shouldn't be a factor.
As somebody else has pointed out, we are talking about potential life. When you go down that road, you end up with "every sperm is sacred" etc.Abortion should not be undertaken lightly, bit why should women be forced by other people to have babies that they do not want/can't look after/are seriously disabled/might harm them in birth?
This is good for the people of Ireland.
Kawasicki said:
Every member of society should be involved with the protection of those who can't defend themselves. It is a moral obligation. Religion shouldn't be a factor.
I don't think EVERY member of society should be involved in this issue - only the individual who has to make the decision. If you are anti-abortion, you are perfectly entitled to hold that view and if, God forbid, you were ever faced with a situation where abortion might be something that you or your partner might have to consider, you both make the decision that you both are happy with.What I disagree with is your assumption that you have a right to tell a woman who you don't know and have no idea of the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy that she should behave in accordance with YOUR moral viewpoint on this issue.
MC Bodge said:
Kawasicki said:
Every member of society should be involved with the protection of those who can't defend themselves. It is a moral obligation. Religion shouldn't be a factor.
As somebody else has pointed out, we are talking about potential life. When you go down that road, you end up with "every sperm is sacred" etc.Abortion should not be undertaken lightly, bit why should women be forced by other people to have babies that they do not want/can't look after/are seriously disabled/might harm them in birth?
This is good for the people of Ireland.
Eric Mc said:
Kawasicki said:
Every member of society should be involved with the protection of those who can't defend themselves. It is a moral obligation. Religion shouldn't be a factor.
I don't think EVERY member of society should be involved in this issue - only the individual who has to make the decision. If you are anti-abortion, you are perfectly entitled to hold that view and if, God forbid, you were ever faced with a situation where abortion might be something that you or your partner might have to consider, you both make the decision that you both are happy with.What I disagree with is your assumption that you have a right to tell a woman who you don't know and have no idea of the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy that she should behave in accordance with YOUR moral viewpoint on this issue.
Kawasicki said:
it is hardly unusual for a civilised society to legally force certain behaviours, is it? Why should others have a right to tell me whether I can build an extension on my house or not?
Because that can have an effect on other people not associated with the extension. No planning regs would result in major changes to developments, infrastructure that couldn't cope and massive urban sprawl. You just don't believe that women should be allowed to choose what happens to them (and impacting on their partner/family) -which could be a very difficult decision- for your own ethical/religious reasons. With prohibition comes dangerous practices.
You appear to be in a small minority in 2018
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff