NovumAngel
Banned
Source: The Journal
This isn't normally the kind of thing I post about but it's a huge deal in Ireland given our tight connections with the Catholic church.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ireland will hold a Referendum on Repealing the Eighth Amendment (Abortion) on Friday the 25th of May
- Thread starter NovumAngel
- Start date
This isn't normally the kind of thing I post about but it's a huge deal in Ireland given our tight connections with the Catholic church.
Codes 208
Member
I can agree with this. It should be discouraged but not a downright ban. Then again, ive always been pro-choice so i suppose i have a bit of bias
NovumAngel
Banned
It hasn't taken long for the pro-life campaigners to get things moving, treated to some nice pictures of aborted fetuses as I was waiting on my bus home last week 
A couple of them were around knocking on people's doors yesterday evening. I wasn't the one who answered at my house but they were being really condescending to the person who did when they mentioned that they had done their research of both sides arguments on the internet before nervously laughing it off and leaving.
A couple of them were around knocking on people's doors yesterday evening. I wasn't the one who answered at my house but they were being really condescending to the person who did when they mentioned that they had done their research of both sides arguments on the internet before nervously laughing it off and leaving.
CampbellzSoup
Member
I fully understand it’s such a hard choice for a woman to make however if you are not raped or have Extenuating circumstances how come a man is never consulted or have rights of the child in the stomach as well my three boys soon to be four are my reason for living and I would think I would have a say if someone wanted to terminate them.
Last edited:
NovumAngel
Banned
In our case it's been because of the overwhelming presence of the Catholic Church being completely against it, plus we haven't had a referendum about it since the 80's when a lot of the population were still very religious.
Jon Neu
Banned
Funny, for me abortion itself is a thing of the medieval times.
Someday people will understand that you don't have the right to terminate a life just because it's an annoyance to you.
AnimalFather
Banned
get rid of outdated catholic laws.
Morality will never be outdated. Without question the rigidity of dogma needs to be more reflective of Jesus's compassion for those who fail to lead perfectly moral lives, but striving for morality is an ideal and not a character flaw. And letting the principals of Christianity fall by the wayside would likely be the worst thing that could ever happen to modern society. If love and compassion is left to the state alone, the world will quickly return to survival of the fittest.
Mohonky
Member
How about no?
The darkest periods of western culture came during the periods where Church and State were inherently intertwined. Moving away from that was the best thing that ever happen to Western Civilisation.
NovumAngel
Banned
Considering the Catholic church in Ireland set up the Magdalene laundries and the later discovery of mass graves of children and babies, I can't say I'm sad to see their influence here, especially with these kinds of issues, waver.
I did not suggest the Catholic Church should write the laws, nor intend to. I also believe the people running the Catholic Church have done many evil things over the years, and many of them will not enjoy the eternal glory they were expecting as a result. But I am against rooting out Christian ideals from society, and would prefer to be mocked than ever agree that something so horrible would benefit society. I truly believe that if we remove the concept of striving to be better to prepare for the next life from our ideals, we will return to survival of the fittest one day.
On a different topic, has anyone else noticed the parallels between the Christian's trying to expel witches from society four hundred years ago, and the social media cultivated society we have today? Not for the end result - I'd much rather be unemployed than burned of course.
On a different topic, has anyone else noticed the parallels between the Christian's trying to expel witches from society four hundred years ago, and the social media cultivated society we have today? Not for the end result - I'd much rather be unemployed than burned of course.
Last edited:
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
Your language here suggests a sympathy for the old "dark ages" caricature of pseudo-history, which is -- as a term, and as a reading of the middle ages -- no longer taken seriously anywhere n historical scholarship, history of science, etcetera. It's not worth rehashing all of that debate, but essentially it is widely recognized today that the middle ages were a time of great achievements scientifically and otherwise.
Anyhow, it's also a fantasy there can be some truly "secular" foundation for the State which is not itself grounded in some religious or pseudo-religious first principles on the dignity of man, which undergird its entire legitimacy. Nowhere in reasoning from nature as it presents itself do we arrive at a conception that each person must be taken as a moral end in themselves, that enacting genocide is morally bad in all cases rather than merely bad for utilitarian calculations, and so on. And every attempt to derive these moral prohibitions from social contract theories cannot even explain them as wrong but simply disadvantageous; not to mention that the idea of a contract itself is only a retroactive, fictional reconstruction of the origins of society, so that the strength and usefulness of that fiction is immediately null when real social conflict erupts.
If you raise abortion to a first principle and a right (truly though, calling it a "right" to have a technologically armed surgical infrastructure subsidized and at the ready to dismember natural processes within your body is pure nonsense -- surely another term is needed at the very least), then you must have some first moral principle upon which that depends. Is it that individual choice must never be limited? We restrict choices in countless places in the modern State when something is deemed dangerous or destructive of dignity or life. Would you try to call it healthcare? We're discussing cases where the mother is not in danger, so calling this healthcare is absurd -- healthcare is ethically limited to fixing something when the body is ill or broken, and cases of surgically modifying healthy processes for elective reasons must fall outside it. If you call it essential healthcare, realize you will have to do the same for a woman one day who wishes -- from the privacy of her own home -- to apply genetic engineering modifications to her developing offspring at will using a kit that is barely sci-fi at this point; that's "her body, her choice" too under that principle, which is why that principle can never logically apply when we're not talking about something within her body but about a dramatic surgical or technological reversal of her body, which can certainly be legally restricted or outlawed. When there's nothing wrong and it's a healthy, normal process that is to be destroyed or reverse engineered, healthcare isn't the right word, and can never be the right word for surgically destroying or altering the body's functions for elective reasons.
NovumAngel
Banned
Of course you're free to believe in these ideals, I was just saying that in regards to certain issues here the church has long outstayed it's welcome and people rightly so want change.
And please try not to derail this thread with other topics related to Christianity, there are other threads for that general topic or if you want a thread made then ask a member to create one on your behalf.
TrainedRage
Banned
I'm pretty sure the argument is, "my body my choice". Which I find a laughable notion.
A prohibition on abortion is a relatively recent moral standard, from about the tail end of the 19th Century in the Western world.
In Medieval times they had a different conception of when a person gained their personhood (soul) which was post birth and gave no moral worth to the feotus, mostly due to general ignorance on how pregnancy progressed.
I'm one of those who view the move away from abortion as a shinning moment in humanity's history as finally we had the wealth and moral depth to push against purely utilitarian motives when it came to children. akin to the way China has moved away abandoning new born girls because they brought no worth to the family.
NovumAngel
Banned
Google has now stepped in and announced that it will stop allowing adverts from both sides of the referendum on both it's normal ads and on YouTube.
This follows our inclusion in a pilot scheme by Facebook to prevent foreign parties placing adverts on its platform to influence voting.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...s-online-ads-on-abortion-referendum-1.3489046
This follows our inclusion in a pilot scheme by Facebook to prevent foreign parties placing adverts on its platform to influence voting.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...s-online-ads-on-abortion-referendum-1.3489046
Autoignition
Member
HELL YEAH, IRELAND. Step in the right direction. Very proud.
98% of Abortions in the UK are prior to 12 weeks and non invasive, the only reason abortions beyond 12 weeks really happen in the UK are for developmental abnormalities (mostly Down Syndrome) and threat the life of the mother.
To be honest our abortion legislation is disingenuous as they're carried out under reasons of "Mental distress" and still officially to be signed off by two doctors as being a genuine case. This never happens, doctors and abortion providers are happy to abort Foetuses regardless of reason and mothers can openly state that they "don't want a girl" as a reason without the blink of an eyelid in surprise. I'd prefer if we changed the legislation to 12 weeks like the majority of nations with a provision of beyond that for significant abnormalities.
prag16
Banned
This is how fetuses die. With thunderous applause.
Autoignition
Member
Damn right. The most thunderous.
Bryank75
Banned
After this cervical check scandal and all the poor women that now have untreatable cancer, on top of the overcrowding in our hospitals and enormous waiting lists.... How can you possibly offer a competent service for abortions?
I mean its a practical matter as well as a moral one.
I mean its a practical matter as well as a moral one.
Paasei
Member
Someday people will understand that they have no right to decide over a woman that is pregnant of an unwanted child. Wether it be through rape or stupidity.
Won't make the life of the child any better living in foster home(s).
JimboJones
Member
Lol.
I'm sure lots of couples talk about it before going for an abortion, just because you're giving them the right doesn't mean every woman is going to go behind their partners back to terminate a pregnancy.
At the end of the day though it's their body if they want to go through with it then the final say is with them.
You don't mourn over all the sperm you've flushed down the toilet so i'm sure you can get over a 12 week fetus.
Last edited:
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
While it's a long-standing rhetorical device for the abortion movement, this statement is nonsense and doesn't function at all as an argument.
There are many, many cases in which we legally and /or morally intervene even though it's "your body." See: suicide, self-harm, and self-mutilation (moral crimes regardless of the lucidity of your choice). Furthermore, imagine -- with only a bit of sci-fi, because this will soon prove feasible -- that an at-home genetic modification kit were available, allowing a mother-to-be to inject something into her occupied womb which would dramatically alter the genetics of the life within. Without question, we'd ban this legally, even though it is entirely a scenario happening "in her body." In the face of these, if you continue to say that no law can ever can ever come between a person and their body... you're clearly not being serious.
Second, it is critical to realize the many, many other people involved in this supposed "my body" act. It's not that a woman can spontaneously reject the life growing within her without inflicting great self-harm -- that requires the aid of technologies and people far beyond her alone. So what you're talking about is not some decision or act in personal isolation, but an entire industry of surgeons, drugs, technologies, and subsidies that are an essential part of the act of abortion. Without question, all of those are subject to legal review, intervention, and banning.
BANGS
Banned
I'm an athiest but common sense tells me abortion is wrong and should only be a last resort and a hard choice, not insurance for failed or lack of contraception...
https://www.nfa.co.uk/blog/10-celebrities-who-were-fostered-or-adopted
Better off dead than living in foster care? Seriously?
https://www.nfa.co.uk/blog/10-celebrities-who-were-fostered-or-adopted
Last edited:
Punishing people for decades because of failed contraception sounds....fucking awful, frankly.
Despite what internet feminists might tell you, nobody is ever excited to get an abortion, and nobody WANTS to have them.
CampbellzSoup
Member
Spoken as someone with no kids, and will probably never have em.
BANGS
Banned
Wait, what are we talking about? Where did this come from? Who's being punished?
Forcing people to be parents when they don't want to be/aren't ready/can't be is punishment. And while adoption is an option, it's not always ideal, as there is a pretty uneven amount of kids being born vs. couples looking to adopt.
hammysaurusrex
Member
Abortion is a serious ethical dilemma, but I'm comfortable trusting women to navigate those complexities and make an appropriate decision.
I personally find the ethical argument against abortion convincing, but allowing the government to mandate forced-childbirth is simply a greater evil in my mind; and so legislatively I side with pro-choice.
I personally find the ethical argument against abortion convincing, but allowing the government to mandate forced-childbirth is simply a greater evil in my mind; and so legislatively I side with pro-choice.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
What kind of insane logic is this? It's not punishment, it's consequences. It's mind blowing to me that we live in such a spoiled rotten privileged society that considers dealing with consequences of your own consensual actions is "punishment"...
Punishment is being executed for the crime of existing. THAT is a punishment...
Autoignition
Member
Being forced into financial burden and extreme emotional distress is not a punishment now? Only execution is punishment?
Kay.
JimboJones
Member
What kind of logic is thinking a fetus is the same as a fully formed human.
You sound like those Bible bashers who think condoms are evil and you should never waste a drop of sperm.
Spoken like someone in a place of privlage.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
Nobody forced them into a financial burden. They made a conscious choice to put themselves into a financial burden. You don't get pregnant by accident. It's not some unfortunate event or side effect. You're not a victim for getting pregnant as a result of consensual sex.
And of course execution is not the only form of punishment, but it certainly is one. Not even sure why you would phrase it like that... But tell me why should the unborn child be punished(with death, the most severe punishement available)because their irresponsible parents don't understand the concept of cause and effect? Why should the idiots who made poor choices get a free pass to do dumb shit while the innocent child gets murdered?
And it's not like these are rare, isolated incidents that aren't a big deal. In some parts of the world, it's more like a fucking holocaust: http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...a-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/
A fetus is not the same as a fully formed human physically or mentally, but it's a human nonetheless. And on the contrary, I think that proper contraception and personal responsibility go a long way to prevent pregnancy to begin with, which prevents abortion. It is indeed unfortunate that some people who use condoms and other birth control still get pregnant, but that's the gamble you sign up for when you have sex. Also, let's not pretend that that's the common case...
Last edited:
Autoignition
Member
Oh, I see. So, instead, it's just poor people who should be punished for being poor by never, ever having sex. Got it.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
Yes it's true, poor people have to be alot more careful about making bad decisions in life than rich people. Consequences are far more dire for us than those that have a large safety net. Congratulations on finally figuring that out...
Autoignition
Member
Absolutely monstrous.
Paasei
Member
So you'd still rather make the decision for someone you don't know, you most likely won't ever see, who's carrying an unborn (sometimes even hardly developed) fetus/baby, that knows nothing about it's own existence? Easy for you to say. You really think people that take an abortion really think it's "fun" and they wanted it to happen? You can't be that naive.
It's amazing how many people really want to believe, or actually do, that life turns shit because they've chosen for it to happen.
Last edited:
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
The distinction is that you can't refer to a healthy, naturally unfolding process of your body as being "forced" into anything. The only force involved is, by definition, always on the side of the surgical and chemical destruction that happens when one intervenes with the technologies of abortion; zero extrinsic force is required for a pregnancy to proceed, it proceeds out of its own inner development of life.
JimboJones
Member
BANGS
Banned
Nope. I never commented on the legality of such issues. It's not my place to say who can and can't murder their baby, I'm just saying it's wrong to do so...
No, I think they really thought the sex was fun and said "YOLO" and fucked without a condom, and now have to deal with the consequences. Abortion itself is never fun obviously...
Yes, reality is monstrous and disgusting at times. Most people learn this well before adulthood... or at least they should...
Last edited:
No, if people have consensual sex they need to realize and be ready to face the consequences of that action. The consequences of having sex is pregnancy, its why sex exists. If they can't accept those consequences then yes they do not need to have sex period.
Autoignition
Member
How do you feel about sperm-killing condoms, perchance? Because that's a chemical destruction of the body's inner development of life. Should we outlaw them too? For moral reasons.
A. That's why it's called a choice and not forced abortion. Making it legal gives people a choice, and if they disagree with it, they can choose to not have one.
B. You do realize that the majority of abortions that occur that aren't health-related are from pregnancies where birth control failed, right? So those people should be punished even though they tried to be cautious?
Yay borderline eugenics! Let's police who can and can't have sex!!
PS thinking of a human life as a "consequence" is a disgusting mindset. Children are a result of some sex. To think of them as a consequence is abhorrent. You should be ashamed.
where did I say police them, nice strawman. I said they do not need to do it. not that I or anyone else needs to force them to not have sex. I didn't say a human life was a consequence, but the state of becoming pregnant was the consequence. you should be ashamed of your terrible debating skills.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked