Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Keep abortion out of Ireland
Comments
-
Because you are arguing the principle of bodily privacy (the woman has the right to do what she likes to her own body) doesn't apply.You're the big fan of bodily privacy so why should i?
And the mother does not kill the foetus, not being in the mothers body kills it.Because I did not kill you. The disease did.
Correct, which is why all she can do is remove the child from her body. It is after all her body, she can do what she likes to her own body, correct?Maybe if you agree with bodily privacy but the child inside her is not her body.
That is exactly the point Festus. It is a foreign body in her body. According to you she has no right to perform an operation on her own body to remove a foreign body, ie a woman has no right to control what is or isn't in her body.You still haven't grasped the concepts and mechanics of pregnancy yet, have you. Yes the child is growing in a cavity within her body but it is not part of her body. When it is developed enough it will be expelled naturally, unless medical conditions dictate that a c-section is required.
Great, that isn't the question I asked you (as I'm sure you are well aware)I do not believe any parent for any reason should be allowed to put the lives of their children in danger.
The child has a right to life. That is what I genuinely believe.
So you do respect bodily privacy, just not when it comes to abortion?No.
Ok, so if that is a given can you explain why it has more rights than any other human being. Why does the foetus have the right to override what the woman can do with her own body?It is a human being is it not?Well you're presenting a fallacious argument. Bodily privacy doesn't mean anything unless you take in to account the bodily privacy of the child.
Can you explain how the bodily privacy of the child is violated by simply being removed from the woman's body?
Well that is the problem with ethics isn't it, you can't just have one rule for some of the time and then another rule for some other of the time.Only because I've been doing this late in the day and only just realised you were trying to paint me into a corner with a logical fallacy.
You want the foetus to be treated as a normal human being. You then demand that the foetus has rights no other human being has.The problem is you refuse to grant the principle of bodily privacy to an unborn child and refuse to state why.
So, explain, why do you believe the unborn child should have no right to bodily privacy?
The unborn child should have the same right to bodily privacy as any other human being. You haven't though yet explained how it's right to bodily privacy is violated by simply being moved out of the woman's womb. It is merely a change of location. The foetus will die due to the fact that it cannot survive any where else other than in the woman's womb* But that isn't due to a violation of bodily privacy. The foetus' bodily privacy is intact.
(there are stories of foetus' being killed after late term abortions rather than letting them die naturally, since them dying naturally may take a number of minutes where the foetus suffers. For the sake of clarity lets call those purposeful killings murder)0 -
There seems to be confusion with some of the pro-abortion proponents with regards to life. There is no scientific statement that says a fertilised egg is not a new life. All that there is, is a philosophical question raised in relation to when that new life has value. For Example, some take the stand that before the human embryo has cognitive function, it is not a 'Person' yet. By introducing personhood, it brings the debate into the philosophical realm. That is not scientific, its philosophical. Science comes into it only in informing that person as to at what point the human embryo develops this cognitive function. It still does not proclaim that it is not a human life, it just says that human life has no value until it is a 'person', which the proponent will define in certain terms. It still doesn't reject the notion that a fertilised egg is a new human life.
First let me say I agree with your post. Just a quick comment on the notion of new life.
"New" life is some what of a arbitrary notion in biology. Like "species", and a lot of other terms, it largely depends on how we define it, ie what criteria do we select to divide things up as individual life forms.
From a purely biological view point it is relatively easy to argue that there is no such thing as new life, that life itself is a self sustaining system. I am not "new" compared to my parents, I am simply a continuation of the process they were, and they are a continuation of the process their previous generations were right back to the first self replicating molecules 4 billion years ago which were really the only "new" things.
This is more obvious when you look not a individual level but a the cellular level. The vast majority of the cells in your body did not exist 8 years ago. Does that mean you are "new"? It could do, if we think about in those terms.
Of course this is some what unsatisfactory to humans, we like to think of things in terms of individual objects or life forms. A badger is a badger until it dies. A spider is a spider, it is different to this other spider and they are both different to their parents. We don't think about cells that might copy themselves ever few days, but as the whole organism that is sustained by these cells.
It is like if you rebuild your house from scratch every week. Is it a new house every week, or just the same house? That depends on how we think about it, it is up to just to decide how we define new in that context.
So in a round about way I'm agreeing with, science will not answer these questions, I'm just taking it even further. Science will not tell us what is "new" life. New life is what ever we define it to be, and you could easily not define anything as new and biology would still make sense. Scientific consensus as to what is new life doesn't mean we have discovered what is new life, it merely means everyone has agreed to use the same, human defined, definition.
This is am important point to keep in mind for anyone who thinks that scientists saying that conception is the moment of a new individual life means something significant as a statement. "..because that is what we decided." could easily be tacked on to the end of such a statement.0 -
Yes, that’s true. But at the same time we have to acknowledge that it’s not something that is decided arbitrarily, or that involves ignoring what we can learn from science. The human embryo is, scientifically speaking, an individual distinct from each of its parents, with its own unique genetic identity which determines many of the characteristics which will distinguish it from its parents (and everyone else). Scientifically speaking, immediately before conception we have two human individuals; immediately afterwards, three. Thus, there is a scientific context which casts light on our decision that the embryo is a “new life”, and perhaps clarifies what we might mean by that.. . . This is am important point to keep in mind for anyone who thinks that scientists saying that conception is the moment of a new individual life means something significant as a statement. "..because that is what we decided." could easily be tacked on to the end of such a statement.
As you rightly point out, science has nothing to say about what significance we should attach to this “new life”. Significance, in this sense, is not a concept that science deals with at all. There’s no scientific case for saying that this newly-incepted unique human individual has a moral claim to be respected as a human person. But, equally, there’s no scientific case for saying that it doesn’t have such a claim now, but will do when it develops to the point of sentience, or to the point of viability, or to the point of actually being born, or that it will never have such a claim. And of course there’s no scientific case for saying that the woman who is carrying the embryo does, or does not, have a moral claim to privacy or autonomy with respect to her own body which allows her to determine whether or not she will continue to carry the embryo. In the end, science can only get us so far here.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Scientifically speaking, immediately before conception we have two human individuals; immediately afterwards, three.
Reaching back into my biology from college but it was certainly never put that way to us. What you'd have immediately after conception would be the genotype for what could potentially become an individual.0 -
As you say killing people should stir emotions- but there is a genuine philosophical/scientific/medical/ethical difference as to what constitutes a person - you and others have reached your position influenced by your religious perspective. And good luck to you - others disagree- but you want to make your view the law of the land not just for you and yours but for everybody. That is the issue.
Says you:rolleyes:. So you know that every anti-abortion person out there is religious?On this issue you want your definition of ''life'' informed as it is by your religious views and against a vast body of opinion enshrined into law.So to rephrase - most people in this country that oppose abortion do so informed by their religious beliefs.
They wish to have that religiously informed view enshrined into law.
Again, you assume you have a clue about what other peoples religious beliefs are. I dont recall a question on the last census about whether your POV on abortion is related to your religion:rolleyes:
Also, the law is such that it protects all humans who are alive. Science has proven that a fertilised human egg is alive. Its YOU and other pro-abortion people who want your views enshrined in law, not the other way around missus.0 -
Advertisement
-
Various Posters wrote:Science has proven life begins at conception.
Such statements miss the point entirely. Both parties more or less agree on the scientific facts, with a few wacky exceptions (abortion causes cancer Etc.). The debate hinges on whether or not a zygote is a human being, an entirely unscientific question.0 -
La Petite Fleur wrote: »This seems to be your real problem with anyone expressing an anti-abortion opinion, along with continually wishing to ignore the fact that many atheists are anti abortion, and I and many other theists would still remain anti abortion even if we became atheists.
So rather than the strawman tangent, how about trying to present to us even just one credible argument that justifies the killing of children while still in the womb ?
Not so, La Petite Fleur - I would ask that you reread any of my last few post to see how far off the mark you are .
Firstlly I am an antheist , and I have grave doubts abortion , just not enough certainty to foist my view into law and still have no effect on those 150.0000 women that went to England and the thousands that follow.
You hit the nail on the head there when you said ''the killing of children in the womb'' - many agree with that but equally many don't. Do you agree with that statement ? What other argument do need ?
You want your view to prevail on everyone - I don't - thats the difference
Would you then move on to banning the morning after/IVF/Stem Cell ?0 -
Stem cell can really help humans, image able to grow a liver for person just from cells,
no more waiting for someone to die for you to get their body parts, thats if they even carry a donor card..
abortion is not a thing to do light hearted, watching videos on YouTube when the child in the womb is being sucked down a tiny tube..
just thinking of those videos the amount of pain that being had before their death.
no one can say they do or dont feel pain, while still that young in development.
But if people are going ahead with abortions why no go to a stem cell Clinic and yet doctors take the child and have it grow into an orgian.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »There’s a “vast body of opinion” that the human embryo is not alive?
Well, I don’t think scientists are in any doubt that the human embryo is alive. Does that conclude the debate, then?
This is just disingenuous.0 -
Also, the law is such that it protects all humans who are alive. Science has proven that a fertilised human egg is alive. Its YOU and other pro-abortion people who want your views enshrined in law, not the other way around missus.
A zygote is indeed alive, but arguably so are a great many things. Something being alive doesn't make it a person. If you believe that prohibiting the development of a zygote is the same as killing a person, then it would indicate you are most like opposed to the mini pill, the combined pill and the morning after pill also? I am actually interested in seeing peoples views on this, and the comparison between the two, because it raises some interesting questions and no-one seemed to respond when Marien had queried the issue earlier in the thread.0 -
Advertisement
-
Such statements miss the point entirely. Both parties more or less agree on the scientific facts, with a few wacky exceptions (abortion causes cancer Etc.). The debate hinges on whether or not a zygote is a human being, an entirely unscientific question.
Absolutely agree. The only thing that biology and scientists can say is that as human beings we didn't hop out of our Dads left ear fully grown, it recognizes that all human beings start from a zygote, even the biologists themselves. It can't make a value statement one way or the other, that's not in the realm of 'Biology'.Firstlly I am an antheist , and I have grave doubts abortion , just not enough certainty to foist my view into law and still have no effect on those 150.0000 women that went to England and the thousands that follow.
I don't know Marien whether it's fair to say that people who cast a vote to shape the moral framework of their society are necessarily 'foisting' a view in relation to abortion. I think it's awful that so many women are left to travel abroad and my heart breaks for them that they feel there is no alternative worth looking at - However, I believe as a member of this society that I should have an opinion, and am entitled to speak up as to how I would like to see it shaped for future generations of my very own offspring too - I don't want it to morph into a smaller version of the UK and how they have dealt with abortion either iykwim.
I suppose I don't believe that we 'must' follow in the footsteps of other countries on this, and neither should we feel some kind of moral guilt over women who have had to make this choice so much so as to forget the unborn - especially in view of the 'hind sight' other countries have afforded us. They haven't reduced their abortion rates or teen pregnancies over the years either - so there must be a better way, there has to be.0 -
Absolutely agree. The only thing that biology and scientists can say is that as human beings we didn't hop out of our Dads left ear fully grown, it recognizes that all human beings start from a zygote, even the biologists themselves. It can't make a value statement one way or the other, that's not in the realm of 'Biology'.
I don't know Marien whether it's fair to say that people who cast a vote to shape the moral framework of their society are necessarily 'foisting' a view in relation to abortion. I think it's awful that so many women are left to travel abroad and my heart breaks for them that they feel there is no alternative worth looking at - However, I believe as a member of this society that I should have an opinion, and am entitled to speak up as to how I would like to see it shaped for future generations of my very own offspring too - I don't want it to morph into a smaller version of the UK and how they have dealt with abortion either iykwim.
I suppose I don't believe that we 'must' follow in the footsteps of other countries on this, and neither should we feel some kind of moral guilt over women who have had to make this choice so much so as to forget the unborn - especially in view of the 'hind sight' other countries have afforded us. They haven't reduced their abortion rates or teen pregnancies over the years either - so there must be a better way, there has to be.
Well they are foisting a view that is issue of concience for them but not for everyone . There is not a general concensus within society that it is wrong.
So a matter of concience you are bound not to go there, give other the same rights. Try to convince them not to by all means , but to crimilalise them ?
And all to this to no avail - they stream across to London in their thousands just to make us feel good about ourselves
Remembering that in this country we had to have a referendum to grant women the right to travel , I think my questions on the morning after/IVF
are very relevant but no one wishes to adress that issue .0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Yes, that’s true. But at the same time we have to acknowledge that it’s not something that is decided arbitrarily, or that involves ignoring what we can learn from science. The human embryo is, scientifically speaking, an individual distinct from each of its parents, with its own unique genetic identity which determines many of the characteristics which will distinguish it from its parents (and everyone else).
True, but it is us that puts significant in things like "genetic identity". You could say that each cell in your body is individual and distinct by simply changing how those terms are defined by us.
They don't have any particular significance beyond out own desire to classify things as distinct units.
These issues are highlighted by looking at the more exotic forms of life that can appear. Or even asexual life, where a piece can simply break off from the "parent" and continue to grow despite physical separation from the parent organism.Peregrinus wrote: »Scientifically speaking, immediately before conception we have two human individuals; immediately afterwards, three.
Again though that definition is rather cyclical. We have two human individuals if you define an individual in the way you are.Peregrinus wrote: »As you rightly point out, science has nothing to say about what significance we should attach to this “new life”. Significance, in this sense, is not a concept that science deals with at all.
It does to a point. For example science gives significance to say unique genetic code, which seems to be what you are using to define an individual. My point is that even these amoral definitions need to be evaluated for what the basis is for accepting them in the first place.
For example, the same unique genetic code that exists in the zygote also exists in the sperm and egg cells that will form that zygote. It is not formed during fertilization. The actual shuffling happened when the sperm and egg were formed. Fertilization simply puts the genetic code closer to each other in the same cells.
So why are the sperm and egg cells not considered an individual. The obvious answer is that they are not a single unit, the sperm cell might be on the other side of the country in the days or hours running to too fertilisation. But this again is a notion based on human classification, what we like to classify based on, not biological process. Nature doesn't give a hoot that the sperm cell is on the other side of the country.0 -
Such statements miss the point entirely. Both parties more or less agree on the scientific facts, with a few wacky exceptions (abortion causes cancer Etc.). The debate hinges on whether or not a zygote is a human being, an entirely unscientific question.
In unscientific terms a zygote is no more a human being than say an embryo, foetus, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult or geriatric. In other words if a zygote is not a human being then the previous terms do not relate to human beings either.
In English a zygote is a term used to describe a life stage in the growth and development of a human being similar to embryo, foetus, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult or geriatric.
In scientific terminology zygote describes the earliest stage of human growth and development : zygote, embryo, foetus.
In scientific terms a new human being exists from the moment of conception - the zygote.
Feel free to present any scientific paper that argues otherwise.0 -
Well they are foisting a view that is issue of concience for them but not for everyone . There is not a general concensus within society that it is wrong.
So a matter of concience you are bound not to go there, give other the same rights. Try to convince them not to by all means , but to crimilalise them ?
And all to this to no avail - they stream across to London in their thousands just to make us feel good about ourselves
Remembering that in this country we had to have a referendum to grant women the right to travel , I think my questions on the morning after/IVF
are very relevant but no one wishes to adress that issue .
As a Catholic, and not just Catholics, but many other Christians. We have the moral obligation never to allow the murder of an innocent human being.
There will never be scope for a True Catholic to allow abortion, or to vote for others to have access to it. Its a closed subject as far as Catholicism goes.
You can't be a Catholic and say while you object to Abortion you don't mind if other women kill their kids.
Respect for life was not invented by the Pope or any bishop. Is central Church teaching that has always been such. You shall not kill.
So I will be voting NO, so will all my Family and all my friends. The Circle I move in is Pro-life.0 -
As a Catholic, and not just Catholics, but many other Christians. We have the moral obligation never to allow the murder of an innocent human being.
There will never be scope for a True Catholic to allow abortion, or to vote for others to have access to it. Its a closed subject as far as Catholicism goes.
You can't be a Catholic and say while you object to Abortion you don't mind if other women kill their kids.
Respect for life was not invented by the Pope or any bishop. Is central Church teaching that has always been such. You shall not kill.
So I will be voting NO, so will all my Family and all my friends. The Circle I move in is Pro-life.
And good luck to you , you allow your concience to guide you. You believe it is a human life others believe in good concience it is not, allow their concience to guide them .
As a catholic do you also believe the morning after is wrong ? of IVF ? or stem cell ? Would try try to make some or all illegal ?0 -
And good luck to you , you allow your concience to guide you. You believe it is a human life others believe in good concience it is not, allow their concience to guide them .
As a catholic do you also believe the morning after is wrong ? of IVF ? or stem cell ? Would try try to make some or all illegal ?
IVF, agains it for faith reasons
Stem Cell (wrong if obtained from zygot) But there is a lot of Stem cell reseach that is morally ok if it does not involve embryos
Morning After Pill, as a widescale method of contraception I believe its wrong. However in the early stages after Rape it should be administered, Conception does not happen immediately, There is nothing wrong when a women who did not consent to sex should not use the morning after pill, putting a barrier on conception is not wrong in this case. Its not an easy Moral area, buts its my interpretation.
Abortion.. however, the willfull killing a Child that you know already exists, is wrong. 99.99% of Abortions are not of a couple of Cells, they are the murder of formed human beings.0 -
IVF, agains it for faith reasons
Stem Cell (wrong if obtained from zygot) But there is a lot of Stem cell reseach that is morally ok if it does not involve embryos
Morning After Pill, as a widescale method of contraception I believe its wrong. However in the early stages after Rape it should be administered, Conception does not happen immediately, There is nothing wrong when a women who did not consent to sex should not use the morning after pill, putting a barrier on conception is not wrong in this case. Its not an easy Moral area, buts its my interpretation.
Abortion.. however, the willfull killing a Child that you know already exists, is wrong. 99.99% of Abortions are not of a couple of Cells, they are the murder of formed human beings.
Serious question here.
You support use of the Morning after Pill in the case of Rape, but how about Abortion in the case of Rape?
e.g. a woman is raped, never gets help and later finds herself pregnant. Say 2-3 weeks pregnant.0 -
how about Abortion in the case of Rape?
e.g. a woman is raped, never gets help and later finds herself pregnant. Say 2-3 weeks pregnant.
Already well discussed a few pages back. A 'morning after the rape' barrier pill is very different to killing a child in the womb.
The innocent Child did nothing wrong, so why is it ok to kill them ?
Rather than killing such children in the womb, society should concentrate on killing any stigma associated with such innocent children.
And if the women so wished there are 1000's of childless Irish couples who would glady give that child a loving home and life.0 -
Serious question here.
You support use of the Morning after Pill in the case of Rape, but how about Abortion in the case of Rape?
e.g. a woman is raped, never gets help and later finds herself pregnant. Say 2-3 weeks pregnant.
I think the Morning After Pill should be used as soon as possible after Rape because conception does not take place immediately. Its use is not to abort (however it can technically) Conception can in theory take place hours after sex, putting a barrier in place to stop conception is not wrong.
If you a pregnant, then a Human life exists, its always wrong to kill that life. That said if a woman who was raped then finds herself pregnant simply can't coup with the pregnancy and mentally becomes unstable or suicidal then morally a termination might be right to save the womans life. Its a very very grey area, the numbers of women who are raped and who result pregnant are in reality very few and this argument is used extensively by pro-choice as a motive to allow abortion.
I had a personal experience of dealing with a 15 yo girl who was raped and who did have the baby. First she said it was he boyfriends, but towards the 6-7 months we found out it was her uncles baby (her fathers brother) Child eventually ended up in care. As bad as the situation was, the reality is the Child is still a Child, and is no more or less valuable than any other Child, When it was found out she was raped should she have been shipped off to have a abortion?
Again it all depends on the womans mental state after a rape and if she becomes pregnant, if she simple can't and won't carry the Child to Term and that Medical experts know she is too fragile then it may be necessary, in order to protect the mothers life to terminate. These laws we already have in Ireland today. Terminations if the Mothers life is at Risk already happen in Ireland. If you have a ectopic pregnancy its a matter of course that it will be terminated in Ireland. But we are always taking about terminating a life here, but with the moral guidance of always trying to save both lives, but in the end having to choose so that one can survive.0 -
Advertisement
-
A recent publication in the Journal of Medical Ethics part of the British Medical Journal has stirred up some debate elsewhere.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full
To be honest the thought of infanticide did not sit well with me before I read the paper. I had an almost emotional/gut reaction, such that I thought that I would find some error or flaw in their reasoning, allowing me to maintain my existing views. (pro-choice up until the fetus develops brain function)After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
But after reading it, I have to provisionally agree with it's premises and logic to its conclusion. A conclusion I initially thought I would not have to face while remaining pro choice.
I suppose that initial gut reaction is common to many people in an abortion debate but an ethical position cannot be founded upon such a reaction. As others have mentioned whether or not a zygote is alive or a human being is completely beside the point.
Whether or not an entity is deserving of rights is entirely to do with self awareness, sapience and its ability for suffering/pleasure.
If anyone is interested in further exploring some of the justifications behind what is a fairly brief paper I suspect Peter Singer's views would be helpful.
Can I also say a thank you to all the posters, on both sides, who are using a secular language that we can all gain from.0 -
IVF, agains it for faith reasons
Stem Cell (wrong if obtained from zygot) But there is a lot of Stem cell reseach that is morally ok if it does not involve embryos
Morning After Pill, as a widescale method of contraception I believe its wrong. However in the early stages after Rape it should be administered, Conception does not happen immediately, There is nothing wrong when a women who did not consent to sex should not use the morning after pill, putting a barrier on conception is not wrong in this case. Its not an easy Moral area, buts its my interpretation.
Abortion.. however, the willfull killing a Child that you know already exists, is wrong. 99.99% of Abortions are not of a couple of Cells, they are the murder of formed human beings.
Which of those would you make illegal0 -
As a Catholic, and not just Catholics, but many other Christians. We have the moral obligation never to allow the murder of an innocent human being.
Surely you mean to add 'under our circumstances' to the end of that, especially after the whole debacle in Uganda and other Christian countries?0 -
A recent publication in the Journal of Medical Ethics part of the British Medical Journal has stirred up some debate elsewhere.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full
To be honest the thought of infanticide did not sit well with me before I read the paper. I had an almost emotional/gut reaction, such that I thought that I would find some error or flaw in their reasoning, allowing me to maintain my existing views. (pro-choice up until the fetus develops brain function)
But after reading it, I have to provisionally agree with it's premises and logic to its conclusion. A conclusion I initially thought I would not have to face while remaining pro choice.
I suppose that initial gut reaction is common to many people in an abortion debate but an ethical position cannot be founded upon such a reaction. As others have mentioned whether or not a zygote is alive or a human being is completely beside the point.
Whether or not an entity is deserving of rights is entirely to do with self awareness, sapience and its ability for suffering/pleasure.
If anyone is interested in further exploring some of the justifications behind what is a fairly brief paper I suspect Peter Singer's views would be helpful.
Can I also say a thank you to all the posters, on both sides, who are using a secular language that we can all gain from.
From an initial read of this, I would presume, and hope, that they are playing devil's advocate and trying to stir up a debate?0 -
-
If they are I'm not seeing it myself.Benny_Cake wrote: »From an initial read of this, I would presume, and hope, that they are playing devil's advocate and trying to stir up a debate?
They don't seem to suggest that this would be in any way ideal or common and they do say that early abortion should always be preferable. They do seem to be genuine in their continuation of the logic to after birth however.
And it will most certainly stir debate!0 -
Always amused me that the right wing crazies think abortion in Ireland is the end of the world, but abortion in England? Well, y'know, they're all heathens and protestants there, so let's forget about that. And now apparently the Virgin Mary is in agreement. Btw, and excuse my ignorance, but Mary conceived Jesus by way of the Holy Spirit (and thus was a virgin), but is it part of catholic dogma that she never afterwards consummated her marriage?0
-
Benny_Cake wrote: »Just wondering what you're referring to by "debacle in Uganda" Sonics?
The fact that 'convicted' homosexuals were to be executed, for being homosexual.0 -
Always amused me that the right wing crazies think abortion in Ireland is the end of the world, but abortion in England? Well, y'know, they're all heathens and protestants there, so let's forget about that. And now apparently the Virgin Mary is in agreement. Btw, and excuse my ignorance, but Mary conceived Jesus by way of the Holy Spirit (and thus was a virgin), but is it part of catholic dogma that she never afterwards consummated her marriage?
The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church teach that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. Protestant churches generally would believe that Jesus had siblings, or simply don't take a position either way. Practically all Christians would believe in the virgin birth of Jesus - it's a core part of the faith.
You don't have to be a right-wing crazy to oppose abortion (although some right-wing crazies do) - I'd be pretty left-wing myself, and would support civil marriage rights for same sex couples, contraception rights and so on, but I do oppose abortion. Also, we live in Ireland, not Britain, so we get a say over what happens here, not in Britain.0 -
Advertisement
-
The fact that 'convicted' homosexuals were to be executed, for being homosexual.
Fair enough - well that's outrageous and the vast majority of Christians would oppose such a bill, I'd hope.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement