Ireland repeals abortion ban!

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1959
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe not. But they can presume positive intent. That is what I do not see in these debates. And the pro-life side suffers because of it. They aren’t where they would like to be. Just my two cents worth. Again, not arguing the morality of abortion, itself.
 
My grandfather died in 2016 and I’ve missed him every day since. But on Saturday it was the first time that I was truly glad he was dead. He would’ve been heartbroken to see that the Irish people voted for this.
 
QwertyGirl said:
Maybe not. But they can presume positive intent.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but engaging in positive dialogue with an opponent waving a coat-hanger at you, screaming abuse, telling you to “Get your Rosaries off our ovaries” and accusing you of not caring if women die, is problematic.
 
Last edited:
I agree that is a problem. Not exactly the behavior of people who are trying to understand an opinion that differs from their own. That is my point. There is plenty of blame to go around.
 
that is on the “other states” or other “countries” to correct their laws and align themselves with the majesterium
 
Brendan_64 said:
Perhaps, but engaging in positive dialogue with an opponent waving a coat-hanger at you, screaming abuse, telling you to “Get your Rosaries off our ovaries” and accusing you of not caring if women die, is problematic.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen questionable tactics on both sides. Including screaming and waving of graphic abortion pictures from the pro-lifers.

The problem is that prolifers admit no qualitative differences between a blastocyst and a 14 week fetus. It is all a “child” and murder to them, so that they scoff at the pro-choice person who says it’s just a bunch of cells. Well, that’s exactly what a blastocyst is and looks like.

I propose when a person is thinking about or defending abortion, it isn’t the cute little pictures of fetuses they see in their mind’s eye, but the amorphous and rather blob-like pictures of blastocysts, zygotes, and very early embryos.

It’s therefore an absurd argument to the pro-choice person to use those later pictures of development, because in my experience, most of the average joes aren’t for later abortions except for extreme conditions anyway.

Then, it becomes even more absurd to them when pro-lifers equate a “sack of cells” to a fully developed, cognizant and self-aware, child.

In their mind, there are orders of magnitude of difference between the two, so that the hard uncompromising, complete lack of any admission of qualitative difference from pro-lifers comes across as disingenuous.

The pro-choice person, starkly unbelieving that anyone could really equate this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

to this:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

…promptly dismisses that equivalency out of hand. At that point, the pro-choice person figures that since it can’t be patently true that that the undifferentiated organism called a blastocyst is the same as a breathing, self-sustaining child, he or she will not see killing them as morally equivalent either.

That argument firmly rejected, the pro-choice person wonders what possibly is motivating the prolifer, since the “murder” argument is truly incomprehensible to the pro-choice person. If he or she is charitable, they may chalk to up to sincere religious belief. Less charitable, and they’ll assume pro-lifers are simply bent on securing women’s reproductive abilities for male purposes.

And now, no matter how much Catholics here spurn them, call them names, accuse them of murder, and so forth, it won’t matter, because you’re talking right past them. When the CC scandals came to light, especially the poor treatment of many unwed mothers in the past, it just reinforced the conviction that many pro-choice people have that it isn’t about the baby at all, but punishing unchaste women.

I think the really sad thing is that the hallmark of a regressive society is how willing it is to kill off its weak, and throw away the unproductive.
 
Last edited:
Its not a blastocyst by the time she realizes she’s pregnant.

And really, WE all are a bunch of cells. Sure WE are self-aware, cognizant, autonomous…but you know who isn’t besides fetuses? Infants. So is self-awareness and autonomy really what we want to base human rights on? Or how the human being appears? Or their level of cognition? I mean, there were people in the past who based their discrimination and mass murder of people with disabilities by saying since they had less cognition and contributed less to society, they had less rights.
 
Last edited:
Are not Catholics against the birth control pill, the morning after pill, and other hormonal methods, not just because they are contraceptive, but abortive? These target just such a zygote or blastocyst.

Also, I mentioned the somewhat undefined nature of early embryos as well.

Again, not much equivalency between this early embryo and a child.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
It very likely is if she is taking RU-486.
 
Last edited:
This is so incredibly sad. The serpents have returned to Ireland. May the Lord have mercy on those who voted to repeal the 8th amendment.
 
Its the same child…just in a different stage of development. Cognition is never a good determinant of human rights. That would violate Natural Law quite a bit.
 
QContinuum said:
I’ve seen questionable tactics on both sides. Including screaming and waving of graphic abortion pictures from the pro-lifers.

The problem is that prolifers admit no qualitative differences between a blastocyst and a 14 week fetus. It is all a “child” and murder to them, so that they scoff at the pro-choice person who says it’s just a bunch of cells. Well, that’s exactly what a blastocyst is and looks like.

I propose when a person is thinking about or defending abortion, it isn’t the cute little pictures of fetuses they see in their mind’s eye, but the amorphous and rather blob-like pictures of blastocysts, zygotes, and very early embryos.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your thoughtful post. You articulated what I was trying to convey, without debating the morality of abortion. It is the perception that each side is less than genuine and sincere in their beliefs that hinders this debate. I truly believe that both sides are reasonable on portions of their arguments. It is this willingness for one side to assume the other side is just a sinful group of monsters that is unacceptable. As a prochoice person, I have seen cringe-worthy behavior from prochoice people directed to prolife people. And of course, I have seen the same thing coming from the opposite direction. It isn’t loving, charitable, kind, or demonstrative of anybody trying to understand the hearts, minds, or souls of their fellow brothers and sisters… It really needs to change, because it is a shameful way for people to treat each other.
 
Last edited:
Monica83 said:
And really, WE all are a bunch of cells. Sure WE are self-aware, cognizant, autonomous…but you know who isn’t besides fetuses? Infants. So is self-awareness and autonomy really what we want to base human rights on? Or how the human being appears? Or their level of cognition?
Click to expand...
You missed the point. Which is the pro-choicer sees the two “bags of cells” as qualitatively different. Even infants are far more developed and differentiated. Far more complex.

Also, they are independent in that they can breathe on their own, digest their own food, excrete their own waste, can regulate their own body temperature, use their own immune system, are self aware in that they know pain, know contentedness, know hunger, recognize facial features, etc.

If you want to compare some of these abilities to the fetus in later development, remember that most pro-choice people are not supportive of late abortions. For that specific reason.
I mean, there were people in the past who based their discrimination and mass murder of people with disabilities by saying since they had less cognition and contributed less to society, they had less rights.
Click to expand...
They still have less respect. I can’t recall how many times I’ve seen it argued on this very board, that social programs to support the poor, the disabled, the mentally ill and addicted, and those who are seriously ill, are all an unnecessary drain on taxpayers, and should just be offloaded to charitable organizations. Despite the fact that these organizations cannot begin to address the costs of all these needs.

Again, if the hallmark of a society is how well it treats its weak, the pro-life side ( at least those of a conservative bent) has a credibility issue in regards to these other issues.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, so you think that influences pro-choice people?

I made the same observation once. The response?

“Hey man, you and I were like that, but did you even know it? No, you don’t remember it and neither do I. So had someone snuffed me out, I’d not even known or cared.”
 
Last edited:
Well…there is a difference between actual scientific ignorance about biology and purposeful ignorance having acquired all scientific knowledge possible about a fetal human being and still denying them their human rights. The 1st one, I have more sympathy for, the 2nd…not so much. Is the 2nd person definitely mortally sinning? Yes. Should the 1st person(unless they live in the 3rd world and have limited/no access to the internet) educate themselves on basic biology if they weren’t already in our PS system? Yes. Abortion doctors should be required to show ultrasounds since so many are unaware of the development of their offspring.

For what its worth, I do not talk about sinning with prochoice people unless they are religious themselves. I stick to Natural Law and science with secular people.
 
Monica83 said:
Its the same child…just in a different stage of development. Cognition is never a good determinant of human rights. That would violate Natural Law quite a bit.
Click to expand...
Do you attempt to argue Natural Law with non-Catholics? It’s a non-starter. It won’t bring the other side closer to your understanding.

To say it’s the same child - again, you will hit the same wall. They will say, it’s the same organism, but different stages of development. As it is patently not a child, but an embryo.

Look, I get what you are saying. But I’m trying to explain that the mindset is very far apart. Catholics tend to have a streak of romanticism in them, in that they hold to a multidimensional view of existence. They see things in both a spiritual and physical light, so they can see the zygote as a both/and.

Secular moderns do not. They tend to see a thing as it is. And that is all it is.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top