Keep abortion out of Ireland

01-04-2012 2:15pm

nope

Wh1stler · 01-04-2012 2:20pm

bluewolf wrote: »

nope

Quelle surprise!

qrrgprgua · 01-04-2012 8:26pm

bluewolf wrote: »

nope

Your not Christian and you are trying to convince Christians in a Christian Forum to disregard their beliefs.

qrrgprgua · 01-04-2012 8:29pm

whitemocha wrote: »

certain Trisomy 13 survive(but not often) full trisomy with hygromas dont i think i would be better to listen to a proffessional then you

Listen all you want.. Just because a professional says something does not alter the Dignity of a person. Life begins at conception (not at birth), Until your child actually dies, he/she is still your child inside or outside the womb... Doctors should not decide who dies and when a person should die... Nobody should.

01-04-2012 8:31pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Your not Christian and you are trying to convince Christians in a Christian Forum to disregard their beliefs.

I believe I was addressing whitemocha earlier, not you. I haven't suggested you change any beliefs

whitemocha · 01-04-2012 8:52pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Listen all you want.. Just because a professional says something does not alter the Dignity of a person. Life begins at conception (not at birth), Until your child actually dies, he/she is still your child inside or outside the womb... Doctors should not decide who dies and when a person should die... Nobody should.

funny really you sound like the least christian like person i know

Benny_Cake · 01-04-2012 8:54pm

hattoncracker wrote: »

abortion is something that is not spoken about because it's too painful, and because of the way, automatically, women are judged for having one, just like you, saying that it is "probably" because theyre ashamed.

I'm not ashamed of the choices I made. I Do not regret them. I never will, and I don't hate myself for it, and I will not let someone else hate me for it. But one person who I thought was my friend gave me dogs abuse for even considering it. So I learned to keep it to myself, and it was not being able to talk about it that has me in counselling now, not the abortion itself.

I would not wish being in that situation on anyone. No one ever understands unless they've been there (and by being there, I'm talking about being a woman who has had to make that choice, or her partner).

You have never personally been in the situations that me or the other lady on this thread have, so your
opinion, whether based on religion or personal choice, should not affect the ability for other women to make that choice. That is why abortion should be legalised. You only ever hear about the women with abortions for eye colour, or those ridiculous other reasons you read about. You never hear about the quiet, grief stricken, terrified women who every singe day have to leave on a jet plane to another country, who only just want their own bed, and their own local Chinese or whatever else that would give them one nice memory on what they will look back on as being one of the most horrible days in their lives, but can't have it because this country does not recognise their rights to a safe abortion in their own country.

Its not because of shame, that you dont hear the stories I can tell you. Its because it's easier to keep it to yourself than to have your decisions disected and judged without the least bit of consideration as to how hard that decision was.

I'm against abortion on an ethical level, I'm also a Christian, although not a very good one. But I want to thank you for sharing your story - no one has the right to judge you, and less still to hate you. I think if one is opposed to abortion, we are obliged to listen to the hard cases and choices which women have enough to make, just as those who support abortion rights should inform themselves as to what is involved. There is way to much shouting over each other on this issue, and it is easy to forget that every woman who has an abortion or considers one is a human being who is going through a really rough time. Hopefully there is some common ground to be found around creating circumstances in which crisis pregnancies are reduced over time. Anyway, I'm just a little concerned that some of the posters seem to view women in that situation as an abstraction, so I wanted to wish you all the best, especially with the counselling.

Edit: Same goes for you Whitemocha, will listen to the interview when I get a chance.

qrrgprgua · 01-04-2012 8:57pm

whitemocha wrote: »

funny really you sound like the least christian like person i know

Its my faith I defend the right to life. I am not attacking you as a person. I am attacking the sin of Abortion.

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

I can't forgive you, I am not God. I respect you as a person. But I can't make a wrong right. If you don't see this as Christian. Then there is nothing we can discuss.

qrrgprgua · 01-04-2012 9:40pm

whitemocha wrote: »

thats ok i never needed nor wanted your forgiveness beacuse what i did was right for the baby i prevented my baby for surfering for a few hours.

But i will forgive you for being ignorant, narrow minded, and slightly deluded because i am a good person and thats what good people do.

Well thats your opinion... so christians are deluded because we don't believe in abortion... Its called faith. There are many ways to stop a person suffering... Killing them is not an option. Are you in the forum looking to change out faith?

hattoncracker · 01-04-2012 10:00pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Well thats your opinion... so christians are deluded because we don't believe in abortion... Its called faith. There are many ways to stop a person suffering... Killing them is not an option. Are you in the forum looking to change out faith?

Reading your posts, and what you are saying, is exactly why religion should have no basis in the law, because you do not know the gravity of what you are saying. You say it, because it is what you were taught, you are coming at it from a religious perspective, which you are confusing with a moral perspective. You do not see it from an unbiased perspective.
So this thread should be kept for Christians only to peddle their unrealistic, untrue and unworldly views, where they can come to vilify, attack and look at the people who make these decisions as heartless because they weren't ready for a child, or stupid because they listened to their doctor. And your views should never be part of the law, or even acknowledged when writing it.

If you ever want to step out from behind the veil of your religion and have an ethical talk, about the decisions that are made, then post it in another forum so that when someone posts something that you don't like, you can't just retort with 'you're not Christian so your view does not matter here!' Here it is accepted but to me it screams of 'LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! ABORTION IS WRONG!!'

whitemocha · 01-04-2012 10:05pm

Backseat modding deleted

hattoncracker · 01-04-2012 10:15pm

whitemocha wrote: »

well said hattoncracker you said what i wanted to say but in a very artiulate INTELLIGENT manor
Backseat modding deleted

I got your back love. ;-)

dj357 · 01-04-2012 10:25pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Well thats your opinion... so christians are deluded because we don't believe in abortion... Its called faith. There are many ways to stop a person suffering... Killing them is not an option. Are you in the forum looking to change out faith?

As mentioned by hattoncracker, faith has no place in the laws of a country. We are a pluralistic state and everyone has a right to their beliefs, but likewise, while not actually enshrined in law, 21st century morality has brought us to the point where everyone in any given society should also have freedom from the persecution of other's beliefs.

Furthermore, Christ's main, albeit unoriginal, teaching was to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Women who have to have or indeed choose to have abortions are, for the majority, merely following this Golden Rule. As in the case of whitemocha, were she to find herself in her child's position, she would rather not be born than to suffer needlessly. As a woman and as the one responsible for the potential life growing within her, this is her right. Your faith may bring you to condemn whether she chooses to bring a child into the world or not but you do not have the right to condemn her under the law based upon said faith. You want to keep abortion out of Ireland? I say keep Religion out of Irish laws!

gimmebroadband · 01-04-2012 10:28pm

A relative of mine gave birth to a severly handicapped baby boy, who died 2 days after birth. She eventually found solice in that she was able to have him baptised and given a name, and a christian burial, as oppose to being thrown in a dumpster as garbage!

gimmebroadband · 01-04-2012 10:30pm

dj357 wrote: »

As mentioned by hattoncracker, faith has no place in the laws of a country. We are a pluralistic state and everyone has a right to their beliefs, but likewise, while not actually enshrined in law, 21st century morality has brought us to the point where everyone in any given society should also have freedom from the persecution of other's beliefs.

Furthermore, Christ's main, albeit unoriginal, teaching was to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Women who have to have or indeed choose to have abortions are, for the majority, merely following this Golden Rule. As in the case of whitemocha, were she to find herself in her child's position, she would rather not be born than to suffer needlessly. As a woman and as the one responsible for the potential life growing within her, this is her right. Your faith may bring you to condemn whether she chooses to bring a child into the world or not but you do not have the right to condemn her under the law based upon said faith. You want to keep abortion out of Ireland? I say keep Religion out of Irish laws!

At the end of our lives, we are judged by God's law, not man's law!

PDN · 01-04-2012 10:33pm

dj357 wrote: »

Furthermore, Christ's main, albeit unoriginal, teaching was to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Women who have to have or indeed choose to have abortions are, for the majority, merely following this Golden Rule.

So these women would be happy to have their babies kill them? Like, really?

hattoncracker · 01-04-2012 10:42pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

A relative of mine gave birth to a severly handicapped baby boy, who died 2 days after birth. She eventually found solice in that she was able to have him baptised and given a name, and a christian burial, as oppose to being thrown in a dumpster as garbage!

That was the right choice for her, doesn't mean it's the right choice for everyone and just because she made that decision doesn't mean that every woman should have to. I'm not attacking your relative, I really feel for what she went through, and being "thrown out in a dumpster as garbage" is not what happened to whitemocha, she was able to spend time with her baby, and brought the remains home and had a service. That remark is not very well researched.

muppeteer · 01-04-2012 10:52pm

Really PDN?
A fetus is not a conscious, sapient being. The do unto others principle holds if use the example of her own mother being in a similar situation. She herself would not have been inconvenienced in the slightest by not existing and would in fact be very inconvenienced by being allowed to develop the capacity for suffering should she have a severely handicapping condition.

A baby killing the mother is sometimes a possibility (ectopic pregnancies) and the mother obviously does not allow the fetus to kill her, as she is a conscious, sapient being capable of valuing her own life. Killing the fetus is not a comparable other to do unto, as it does not have the same human qualities.

HamletOrHecuba · 01-04-2012 10:54pm

muppeteer wrote: »

Really PDN?
A fetus is not a conscious, sapient being. .

At stages of the pregnancy where abortion is allowed on mainland UK yes it is.

muppeteer · 01-04-2012 11:05pm

Very well, to clarify, an early stage foetus is not conscious, it cannot feel pain.

PDN · 01-04-2012 11:13pm

muppeteer wrote: »

She herself would not have been inconvenienced in the slightest by not existing .

Charming. Says it all really.

muppeteer · 01-04-2012 11:15pm

PDN wrote: »

Charming. Says it all really.

Says what exactly? How is this charming?

Run_to_da_hills · 01-04-2012 11:20pm

A selection of DIY anti Abortion bumper stickers.

http://www.lovethetruth.com/evils/abortion/prolife_graphics.htm

Sin City · 01-04-2012 11:22pm

muppeteer wrote: »

Really PDN?
A fetus is not a conscious, sapient being. The do unto others principle holds if use the example of her own mother being in a similar situation. She herself would not have been inconvenienced in the slightest by not existing and would in fact be very inconvenienced by being allowed to develop the capacity for suffering should she have a severely handicapping condition.

A baby killing the mother is sometimes a possibility (ectopic pregnancies) and the mother obviously does not allow the fetus to kill her, as she is a conscious, sapient being capable of valuing her own life. Killing the fetus is not a comparable other to do unto, as it does not have the same human qualities.

1 When exactly do we develop consciousness then? When does a foetus become a baby? Or when does life exist? The fact that a fetus can develop consciousness and has a chance at becomming human then it can still be considered murder.

2 Define human qualities?

In your mind should we kill the mentally disabled?
The physically disabled

Sure newborns have no idea of the value of their own life so lets do away with them too?

hattoncracker · 01-04-2012 11:24pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A selection of DIY anti Abortion bumper stickers.

http://www.lovethetruth.com/evils/abortion/prolife_graphics.htm

In response:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/251fa6410b/women-s-health-experts-speak-out

This is what I think of abortion law in Ireland.

Sin City · 01-04-2012 11:28pm

hattoncracker wrote: »

In response:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/251fa6410b/women-s-health-experts-speak-out

This is what I think of abortion law in Ireland.

Lol priceless

hattoncracker · 01-04-2012 11:29pm

Sin City wrote: »

Lol priceless

And very sadly, quite true.

gimmebroadband · 01-04-2012 11:35pm

Sin City wrote: »

Thats sick man

Seriously

There is no need for shock tactics in a ethical debate

I'm sorry, but abortion is shocking - pictures say it better than words!

Sin City · 01-04-2012 11:38pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I'm sorry, but abortion is shocking - pictures say it better than words!

Im sorry gimmiebroadbanned, but lets face facts

That isnt a foetus so its false advertising
Trying to tug at the heart strings

Im against abortion but I believe being able to have a civilised rational discussion/debate without the need for shock tactics

Abortion is an emotive action and does not need these graphic images to be shown

muppeteer · 01-04-2012 11:46pm

Sin City wrote: »

1 When exactly do we develop consciousness then? When does a foetus become a baby? Or when does life exist? The fact that a fetus can develop consciousness and has a chance at becomming human then it can still be considered murder.

Research suggests that conscious capacity for pain is not present in a fetus before 23-30 weeks.
Life exists continually but I suspect you mean to ask when does a embryo/fetus become a human being/person.

2 Define human qualities?

Human qualities are fairly broadly defined as I see it, but I would generally say that human qualities are that we are conscious, sapient animals.

In your mind should we kill the mentally disabled?
The physically disabled

No, we should protect any human person who has the capability for suffering/happiness.
Would I see the killing of humans in Permanent Vegetative States as murder? No, as there is no person there to murder if the brain is already destroyed.

Sure newborns have no idea of the value of their own life so lets do away with them too?

They have no conscious value of their own life but they are capable of suffering and of pleasure and so deserve protection from unnecessary suffering, including death.

Sin City · 01-04-2012 11:58pm

muppeteer wrote: »

Research suggests that conscious capacity for pain is not present in a fetus before 23-30 weeks.
Life exists continually but I suspect you mean to ask when does a embryo/fetus become a human being/person.

Human qualities are fairly broadly defined as I see it, but I would generally say that human qualities are that we are conscious, sapient animals.

No, we should protect any human person who has the capability for suffering/happiness.
Would I see the killing of humans in Permanent Vegetative States as murder? No, as there is no person there to murder if the brain is already destroyed.
They have no conscious value of their own life but they are capable of suffering and of pleasure and so deserve protection from unnecessary suffering, including death.

But your forgetting the point
If left alone the fotes has every chance that all this will develop so it can still be classed as a murder, do you cut off a limb when its lacerated even though if left alone it will heal?

You say research suggests not research has been explicitly proven beyond a shadow of a doub which isnt very definitive

When exactly do we become conscious?
Look at Satre , he proposes its because we think that we are conscious that we exist, a newborn cannot think as abstract as that , so does that mean they can be put down because they are not conscious?

As for happiness, new borns arent capable of being happy, they just react to the situation. They have the ability to become happy but actually do not have any emotions

Sin City · 02-04-2012 12:03am

For decades Dr. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne, has incited outrage by advocating for infanticide in cases of extreme disability, since “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person,” because an infant is not yet self-aware (Leo, 1999). Grown animals, however, he does consider “self-aware,” leading him to conclude that “the life of a newborn baby is of less value . . . than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee (Leo, 1999).”

I think some new criteria for the right for life is needed

Or at least properly define consciouness

dj357 · 02-04-2012 12:08am

gimmebroadband wrote: »

At the end of our lives, we are judged by God's law, not man's law!

You are entitled to that belief, but it does not make it a fact. Nor does it entitle anyone to persecute or condemn anyone else through the law at the behest of that belief.

Sin City wrote: »

The fact that a fetus can develop consciousness and has a chance at becomming human then it can still be considered murder.

If this logic is valid, which it is not, then every single man on earth is guilty of negligent homicide to the tune of at least 20 million per day. Similarly, every ovulation a woman experiences that results in a period is another negligent homicide. Sperm have the potential to result in conscious human life, as does an egg, as does a blastocyst as does a fetus up to approx. 22 weeks where physical structures that allow transmission of nerve signals such as pain begin to form.

The responsibility of another human life is not a simple gift, it is, indeed, a responsibility and every person has the right to deny the burden of that responsibility before it becomes a person in it's own right. That is what we are talking about here, a woman's right to choose a) whether she wants to endure the process of pregnancy and b) whether she wants to endure the raising of a child. In the case of a) we have contraception and abortion if she chooses not to. In the case of b) we have adoption.

In theory our dividing line between a human and a responsibility we can deny should be sentience. The ability of an entity to become aware of it's own existence. In humans, however, this does not happen immediately after birth. In practice, it is not so simple. The abortion debate will rage back and forth over this dividing line for many years to come but in Ireland a woman does not even have the right to abort a simple cluster of cells never mind an organism which may or may not feel pain, based on who you listen to. Let's at the very least respect Irish women enough to realise that most woman who choose to have abortions are not aborting a near term fetus and chucking it into a f**king bin. Wake the f**k up.

Also, stop conflating the argument about a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy with ethical quandaries regarding euthanasia and the disabled. It's a common tactic in the abortion discussion and it's both detrimental and time wasting.

Sin City · 02-04-2012 12:13am

dj357 wrote: »

You are entitled to that belief, but it does not make it a fact. Nor does it entitle anyone to persecute or condemn anyone else through the law at the behest of that belief.

If this logic is valid, which it is not, then every single man on earth is guilty of negligent homicide to the tune of at least 20 million per day. Similarly, every ovulation a woman experiences that results in a period is another negligent homicide. Sperm have the potential to result in conscious human life, as does an egg, as does a blastocyst as does a fetus up to approx. 22 weeks where physical structures that allow transmission of nerve signals such as pain begin to form.

The responsibility of another human life is not a simple gift, it is, indeed, a responsibility and every person has the right to deny the burden of that responsibility before it becomes a person in it's own right. That is what we are talking about here, a woman's right to choose a) whether she wants to endure the process of pregnancy and b) whether she wants to endure the raising of a child. In the case of a) we have contraception and abortion if she chooses not to. In the case of b) we have adoption.

In theory our dividing line between a human and a responsibility we can deny should be sentience. The ability of an entity to become aware of it's own existence. In humans, however, this does not happen immediately after birth. In practice, it is not so simple. The abortion debate will rage back and forth over this dividing line for many years to come but in Ireland a woman does not even have the right to abort a simple cluster of cells never mind an organism which may or may not feel pain, based on who you listen to. Let's at the very least respect Irish women enough to realise that most woman who choose to have abortions are not aborting a near term fetus and chucking it into a f**king bin. Wake the f**k up.

Also, stop conflating the argument about a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy with ethical quandaries regarding euthanasia and the disabled. It's a common tactic in the abortion discussion and it's both detrimental and time wasting.

First off, untill the sperm and the egg combine there is no chance of life so that scuppers your first argument

I understand that most women arent aborting full term foetuses and I am not trying to use shock tactics to back up my points

Lastly drawing up similar paralles is not detrimental or time wasting
Surely if the argument was that they have to be conscious to have a right to life then that factor should be universal

CiaranMT · 02-04-2012 12:17am

gimmebroadband wrote: »

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7417/abortedbabyh.jpg[/URL]

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I'm sorry, but abortion is shocking - pictures say it better than words!

The only thing the above posts show is to confirm that you can't engage in the debate in any other manner than by trying to elicit emotional reactions from people in what is already an incredibly difficult debate.

Instead of using these shock tactics, or proclaiming that your god will judge all, how about trying to argue a point?

Just after reading dj357's post above mine and it sums up what I was about to say better than I could.

muppeteer · 02-04-2012 12:25am

Sin City wrote: »

But your forgetting the point
If left alone the fotes has every chance that all this will develop so it can still be classed as a murder, do you cut off a limb when its lacerated even though if left alone it will heal?

The argument from potentiality is irrelevant as then you could class as murder those who use contraception. They intentionally prevent a potential person from coming into existence by preventing an egg and sperm coming together or they intentionally murder by preventing implantation. Can you see how argument from potential leads to silliness.

You say research suggests not research has been explicitly proven beyond a shadow of a doub which isnt very definitive

No research proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. We can always err on the side of caution and base our cut off points on the more conservative estimates of when the brain develops enough to feel pain.

When exactly do we become conscious?
Look at Satre , he proposes its because we think that we are conscious that we exist, a newborn cannot think as abstract as that , so does that mean they can be put down because they are not conscious?

Consciousness is ill defined so we go with our best information, that if the brain is non functional then consciousness is not present.

As for happiness, new borns arent capable of being happy, they just react to the situation. They have the ability to become happy but actually do not have any emotions

Depends on how you define happy. I would think basic instincts such as receiving milk would produce something akin to pleasure. Sure a baby might not gain pleasure from being able to think of it's future goals but it can at least experience pleasure. Why do you think they have no emotions?

dj357 · 02-04-2012 1:28am

Sin City wrote: »

Lastly drawing up similar paralles is not detrimental or time wasting
Surely if the argument was that they have to be conscious to have a right to life then that factor should be universal

Someone who has already been born and has a family and/or people who have committed to the responsibility of caring for them is not a similar parallel.

Andrewf20 · 02-04-2012 11:52am

Just a thought, does the bible say anything as to why God allows so many natural miscarriages/ abortions? I had a quick look in google but couldnt find anything.

prinz · 02-04-2012 12:07pm

Sin City wrote: »

Im against abortion but I believe being able to have a civilised rational discussion/debate without the need for shock tactics. Abortion is an emotive action and does not need these graphic images to be shown

I'd agree in so far as there is a time and a place. I disagree completely with the people with the stand showing these pictures outside the GPO in Dublin for example.

However in topics such as this between adults who are there to discuss the issue at hand then I think there definitely is a place for "shock tactics" if by shock tactics you mean images showing the end result of santised debating. Similarly I'd argue that politicians in favour of war should spend some time in the trenches with the frontline troops so to speak, and not thousands of miles away having "rational civilised debate" in a nice cosy office over tea and biscuits... so they get to see the real human impact of their decisions. It's for the same reason that the Allies used to round up German civilians after the liberation of concentration and death camps and march them though them... because while rational and civilised debate is one thing, seeing the actual human impact with your own eyes is something very different.

That said I also don't like these threads to descend into who can find the most stomach-churning picture. I can see both sides here but in general I think people should be prepared to see the outcomes of their decisions one way or the other. There's far too much white-washing of the truth in case people get put off their cucumber sandwiches.

Benny_Cake · 02-04-2012 12:35pm

I think that there problem with shock tactics such as that picture is that people won't read or listen to the point you are trying to put across as they are repelled by the imagery. That would be my reaction anyway. I also think that it's unethical to post an image such as that on a public forum.

Morbert · 02-04-2012 12:42pm

Just to fight with fire:

Also, nobody here (I would imagine) is claiming abortion should be legal in all trimesters. So if a shock image is posted, make sure it's relevant.

PDN · 02-04-2012 12:59pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think that there problem with shock tactics such as that picture is that people won't read or listen to the point you are trying to put across as they are repelled by the imagery. That would be my reaction anyway. I also think that it's unethical to post an image such as that on a public forum.

I find the picture pretty abhorrent. But I'm puzzled as to why the pro-abortion side should get so outraged over a photograph of a 'clump of cells' in a bin.

gimmebroadband · 02-04-2012 12:59pm

Morbert wrote: »

Just to fight with fire:

Also, nobody here (I would imagine) is claiming abortion should be legal in all trimesters. So if a shock image is posted, make sure it's relevant.

When it comes to the human Soul, there is no difference between the image I posted and this one!

CiaranMT · 02-04-2012 1:07pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

When it comes to the human Soul, there is no difference between the image I posted and this one!

So, still not going to engage in the debate?

gimmebroadband · 02-04-2012 1:12pm

CiaranMT wrote: »

So, still not going to engage in the debate?

Jesus words are not up for debate as far as I'm concerned! There is NO justification for killing the unborn at any stage!

CiaranMT · 02-04-2012 1:16pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Jesus words are not up for debate as far as I'm concerned! There is NO justification for killing the unborn at any stage!

Suit yourself.

MrPudding · 02-04-2012 1:17pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

A relative of mine gave birth to a severly handicapped baby boy, who died 2 days after birth. She eventually found solice in that she was able to have him baptised and given a name, and a christian burial, as oppose to being thrown in a dumpster as garbage!

I am glad she found solice, which hopefully did not come at the cost of two days of suffering by the baby boy.

MrP

02-04-2012 1:23pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Jesus words are not up for debate as far as I'm concerned! There is NO justification for killing the unborn at any stage!

where did jesus say anything on the subject at all?

as for shock images, i would have thought we're a bit beyond "it looks gross so it's wrong"
might as well go and protest open heart surgery because "it looks gross"

JimiTime · 02-04-2012 1:44pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I am glad she found solice, which hopefully did not come at the cost of two days of suffering by the baby boy.

MrP

What a piece of bullsh1t spin.

dj357 · 02-04-2012 1:44pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Jesus words are not up for debate as far as I'm concerned! There is NO justification for killing the unborn at any stage!

I'm afraid that's where you're wrong on both accounts. Jesus' words are always up for debate, most especially when he never, not once in the entire Bible, ever spoke about either abortion or the point at which a 'soul' enters a human body.

To add insult to injury you seem to be committing one of Jesus' most frowned upon sins yourself, that of self righteousness and holding one's self above others, in regard to this issue.

PDN wrote: »

I find the picture pretty abhorrent. But I'm puzzled as to why the pro-abortion side should get so outraged over a photograph of a 'clump of cells' in a bin.

The photo in question is quite clearly and demonstrably different to the one posted by Morbert. On the one hand, a group of dividing cells, on the other hand what appears to be a 3rd trimester baby in a garbage bin.

Keep abortion out of Ireland

Comments