Keep abortion out of Ireland

marienbad · 29-02-2012 10:57pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I thought I'd point out that the CC teaches that the morning after pill is an abortifacient, in that it prevents implantation not conception, and so is not permitted.

more.....

Thank you, that is what I thought. So would it be fair to say that in the interest of consistency those that oppose abortion should also oppose this ?

marienbad · 29-02-2012 10:59pm

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

Never seen a credible one, but feel free to attempt one . .

The Quadratic Equation is that you ?

La Petite Fleur · 29-02-2012 11:02pm

marienbad wrote: »

The Quadratic Equation is that you ?

It's a while since I done any maths, whats the link with proof ?

lmaopml · 29-02-2012 11:58pm

marienbad wrote: »

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.

Ok, so are you saying that it is not wrong ever to terminate a pregnancy, that it is the sole 'right' of the woman to decide always and forever whether a pregnancy should continue or not? Am I way off?

Ninap · 01-03-2012 12:27am

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

Error, myth, prejudice and generalisation all in one post. Very good.

Firstly I'm about as left wing as they come and totally anti abortion, so are many left wingers.

Secondly if I lived in England I would also be anti abortion, the country is irelevant to killing children in the womb.

Er, the OP suggests Virgin Mary believes it would be a particular calamity if abortion is made available in Ireland. This is also the mindset of most Irish "pro lifers". They seem to think it would be more evil for Irish women to have abortions in Ireland rather than travel to England as they do now. Can't see any moral difference myself.

marienbad · 01-03-2012 1:24am

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, so are you saying that it is not wrong ever to terminate a pregnancy, that it is the sole 'right' of the woman to decide always and forever whether a pregnancy should continue or not? Am I way off?

Way off , Imaopml. I have huge issues with abortion anyway, but I take into account that is not an issue I have to face directly . But it was as issue very briefly with a member of my immediate family . I tried to stay neutral until asked and then I came down vehemently on the side of not aborting .

But some of my friends have taken the other road and it is not for me to say they were wrong.

There is genuine dis-agreement on this issue ,but I believe denying a woman the right to choose ( with certain safeguards) is profoundly wrong. This is where my opposition to making it the law of the land comes from.

Campaign, educate, love the neglected children we already have, win the hearts and minds and with a bit of nudging I might even join you on the barricades.

But criminalise these poor women - never.

lmaopml · 01-03-2012 1:33am

marienbad wrote: »

Way off , Imaopml. I have huge issues with abortion anyway, but I take into account that is not an issue I have to face directly . But it was as issue very briefly with a member of my immediate family . I tried to stay neutral until asked and then I came down vehemently on the side of not aborting .

But some of my friends have taken the other road and it is not for me to say they were wrong.

There is genuine dis-agreement on this issue ,but I believe denying a woman the right to choose ( with certain safeguards) is profoundly wrong. This is where my opposition to making it the law of the land comes from.

Campaign, educate, love the neglected children we already have, win the hearts and minds and with a bit of nudging I might even join you on the barricades.

But criminalise these poor women - never.

I'm sorry if it is something you have had to deal with in your family Marien. I don't understand however, what your objection to abortion is, or the safeguards you speak of and why it's ok sometimes and not others?

Are we criminalising women in Ireland? How so....? perhaps I'm ignorant of it, as like yourself it's not something that has touched me directly, but certainly one of my friends has made a choice to abort. I love her, she's my friend, always will be.

marienbad · 01-03-2012 2:02am

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm sorry if it is something you have had to deal with in your family Marien. I don't understand however, what your objection to abortion is, or the safeguards you speak of and why it's ok sometimes and not others?

Are we criminalising women in Ireland? How so....? perhaps I'm ignorant of it, as like yourself it's not something that has touched me directly, but certainly one of my friends has made a choice to abort. I love her, she's my friend, always will be.

Well Imaopml- I don't believe it is right to take private belief, a matter of conscience, whatever you want call it - and seek to make it the law of the land.

Particularly when there is not general acceptance of that belief.

This is what happened in Ireland with contraception and in a classic example of the law of unintended consequences fueled the boom in travel to England for abortion.

Then we must look at the consequences of the various referenda we have had on the issue and where we are today. Initially we were told that it was only a ban on abortion that was sought. But once that was achieved the next step was to try to ban information and the giving of information (including magazines giving addresses, student unions, clinics) and then we moved on to the right to travel. All on foot of that referendum victory

I have no doubt if it was not stopped right there Stem Cell/ IVF/Morning after and who knows what else would have would now be banned also.
That is the parts the pro-life campaign never tell you.

The attempt was made to criminalise women by preventing them travelling to England and I have no doubt it would be made again if it had a chance of succeeding.

I believe it is a matter of conscience and as such has no place in law. What I believe or any individual believes is immaterial .

It is up to each individual to make their own choice.

Peregrinus · 01-03-2012 4:05am

marienbad wrote: »

Well Imaopml- I don't believe it is right to take private belief, a matter of conscience, whatever you want call it - and seek to make it the law of the land.

Particularly when there is not general acceptance of that belief.

Hold on. I think this raises a fairly fundamental issue.

It’s a matter of conscience for me that the death penalty is wrong, and I would strongly support changes to the law to end the death penalty, if we hadn’t already ended it.

It’s a matter of conscience for me that rounding up Jews and gassing them is absolutely unacceptable and, were it necessary, I would campaign strongly for appropriate changes to the law and to public policy.

It’s a matter of conscience for some that a woman has a right of privacy and autonomy which limits or precludes entirely the power of the state to dictate if, or when, she may have an abortion, and they campaign for appropriate legal changes.

Are all these campaigns wrongly conceived, because they seek to have private beliefs and matters of conscience reflected in law and public policy?

I’m sorry, but I don’t think the view that “private beliefs” and “matters of conscience” ought not to be reflected in the law of the land is at all coherent or defensible. The whole point of a democracy is that we all have some influence over the exercise of state power. How state power ought to be exercised is always a moral question, and the notion that we can answer moral questions without reference to our private beliefs and our own consciences is just silly.

I would go along with you so far as to say that I cannot reasonably demand that the law be brought into line with my conscientious belief because, and only because, it is my conscientious belief. I need some further argument than that.

But I reject entirely the suggestion that my views on law or policy should be dismissed or discounted or treated as in some way of less validity because they proceed from my personal conscientious beliefs. You should assume that all my political opinons and positions proceed from my personal beliefs and, on balance, I think they ought to.

gimmebroadband · 01-03-2012 11:26am

It seems that freedom of choice doesn't extend to midwives in the U.K. who don't want to participate in or oversee an abortion.

British court rules Catholic midwives can be forced to participate in abortions.

Judgment was handed down today in the case of two senior midwives from Glasgow who have a conscientious objection to abortion. The midwives have been told that they must accept the decision of their hospital management that they must oversee other midwives performing abortions on the labour ward.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/british-court-rules-catholic-midwives-can-be-forced-to-participate-in-abort

marienbad · 01-03-2012 11:27am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hold on. I think this raises a fairly fundamental issue.

It’s a matter of conscience for me that the death penalty is wrong, and I would strongly support changes to the law to end the death penalty, if we hadn’t already ended it.

It’s a matter of conscience for me that rounding up Jews and gassing them is absolutely unacceptable and, were it necessary, I would campaign strongly for appropriate changes to the law and to public policy.

It’s a matter of conscience for some that a woman has a right of privacy and autonomy which limits or precludes entirely the power of the state to dictate if, or when, she may have an abortion, and they campaign for appropriate legal changes.

Are all these campaigns wrongly conceived, because they seek to have private beliefs and matters of conscience reflected in law and public policy?

I’m sorry, but I don’t think the view that “private beliefs” and “matters of conscience” ought not to be reflected in the law of the land is at all coherent or defensible. The whole point of a democracy is that we all have some influence over the exercise of state power. How state power ought to be exercised is always a moral question, and the notion that we can answer moral questions without reference to our private beliefs and our own consciences is just silly.

I would go along with you so far as to say that I cannot reasonably demand that the law be brought into line with my conscientious belief because, and only because, it is my conscientious belief. I need some further argument than that.

But I reject entirely the suggestion that my views on law or policy should be dismissed or discounted or treated as in some way of less validity because they proceed from my personal conscientious beliefs. You should assume that all my political opinons and positions proceed from my personal beliefs and, on balance, I think they ought to.

I would'nt disagree with too much of that peregrinus as you are picking examples when the argument has already been fought and won.

But is also a matter of concience or belief for some that genital mutilation is ok, indeed required , that adultery is a crime and justifies stoning , I could go on.

But there is genuine disagreement on this issue and for the moment this country has come down on one side and so be it.

But in other countries they have decided to compromise and allow the right to choose. Those that feel the need to avail of abortion may do so those that don't may not.

lmaopml · 01-03-2012 1:21pm

marienbad wrote: »

Well Imaopml- I don't believe it is right to take private belief, a matter of conscience, whatever you want call it - and seek to make it the law of the land.

Particularly when there is not general acceptance of that belief.

Hmm, yes but that is exactly what you do when you vote too no? You bring to the voting booth what you consider the better part of yourself and vote accordingly.

This is what happened in Ireland with contraception and in a classic example of the law of unintended consequences fueled the boom in travel to England for abortion.

Then we must look at the consequences of the various referenda we have had on the issue and where we are today. Initially we were told that it was only a ban on abortion that was sought. But once that was achieved the next step was to try to ban information and the giving of information (including magazines giving addresses, student unions, clinics) and then we moved on to the right to travel. All on foot of that referendum victory

I have no doubt if it was not stopped right there Stem Cell/ IVF/Morning after and who knows what else would have would now be banned also.
That is the parts the pro-life campaign never tell you.

Well, I'm not a magnificent campaigner or at least an active one - so I really only inform myself as I go along.

I think Marien that there are a few rabbit holes there in relation to Stem Cell/IVF/Morning after etc. that blur the topic and present some rabbit holes -

It's something that I can't quite put my finger on that makes me uncomfortable about accepting your arguement at face value about a womans right that trumps that of the unborn child, and not only that, but also is oppressed by this society that seeks to cherish both...

It is up to each individual to make their own choice.

Is it allowed that each individual shapes this society too, and it's values, laws etc.?

Why must we see 'progress' in relation to a womans right to choose, or as some 'thing' that must be left behind in order to 'progress' (such as the value of the unborn being left behind ) over and above any kind of growth that presumes not leaving things behind us but evolving a better understanding, and meeting the needs both woman and child, but keeping the values we have already. ?

Also, the heel of the hunt here is that really if you feel that way about a womans bodily privacy and that it is sancro sanct above the rights of the unborn to growth, you actually do support abortion on demand ultimately no? What 'good' comes of this to our society that it should be recommended?

Also, you spoke of safeguards ealier - what do you mean, how can you 'safeguard' a womans right to choose when in fact you seem to believe it is the ultimate expression of progress and freedom?

Sorry, now- I'm just thinking this through, so probably not very clearly expressed. I don't know if you understand my thoughts on it?

Zombrex · 02-03-2012 1:45am

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

Never seen a credible one, but feel free to attempt one . .

So why are you in support of the morning after pill, which can stop implantation of fertilized eggs in the womb?

PDN · 02-03-2012 8:20am

Zombrex wrote: »

So why are you in support of the morning after pill, which can stop implantation of fertilized eggs in the womb?

The poster in question has been sitebanned. In normal circumstances I would point out the futility of therefore asking them a question. However, this individual has re-regged so many times that I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they will soon be back under a new name to answer your question.

marienbad · 02-03-2012 6:06pm

lmaopml wrote: »

Hmm, yes but that is exactly what you do when you vote too no? You bring to the voting booth what you consider the better part of yourself and vote accordingly.

Well, I'm not a magnificent campaigner or at least an active one - so I really only inform myself as I go along.

I think Marien that there are a few rabbit holes there in relation to Stem Cell/IVF/Morning after etc. that blur the topic and present some rabbit holes -

It's something that I can't quite put my finger on that makes me uncomfortable about accepting your arguement at face value about a womans right that trumps that of the unborn child, and not only that, but also is oppressed by this society that seeks to cherish both...

Is it allowed that each individual shapes this society too, and it's values, laws etc.?

Why must we see 'progress' in relation to a womans right to choose, or as some 'thing' that must be left behind in order to 'progress' (such as the value of the unborn being left behind ) over and above any kind of growth that presumes not leaving things behind us but evolving a better understanding, and meeting the needs both woman and child, but keeping the values we have already. ?

Also, the heel of the hunt here is that really if you feel that way about a womans bodily privacy and that it is sancro sanct above the rights of the unborn to growth, you actually do support abortion on demand ultimately no? What 'good' comes of this to our society that it should be recommended?

Also, you spoke of safeguards ealier - what do you mean, how can you 'safeguard' a womans right to choose when in fact you seem to believe it is the ultimate expression of progress and freedom?

Sorry, now- I'm just thinking this through, so probably not very clearly expressed. I don't know if you understand my thoughts on it?

Sorry for not responding earlier Imaopml, now to answer your points- When I vote no it is not quite that same though, in that in does not force anyone to have an abortion . You are still free to do as your conscience tells you, lets others have the same facility.

It is not just a question of the right to privacy/the rights of the unborn/ the right to choose - there is fundamental disagreement on this issue , millions of women have abortions and tens of thousands of people facilitate those abortions - some may think this is murder on a genocidal scale , but those that really count don't. Until you convince those people of your point of view it is all really academic.

When I referred to safeguards I meant regulating the position so that unlike Ireland where under certain circumstances technically (as far as I am aware) one can have an abortion up until the baby pops out of the womb

lmaopml · 02-03-2012 10:27pm

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry for not responding earlier Imaopml, now to answer your points- When I vote no it is not quite that same though, in that in does not force anyone to have an abortion . You are still free to do as your conscience tells you, lets others have the same facility.

Well, I think it is the same, it's a vote at the end of the day. I know you are not forcing anybody to have an abortion and I think I understand your reasoning in the sense that you believe that 'choice' is at the top of the chain with regards to women.

I don't always do what my conscience tells me to be honest Marien, but with regards things like weighing 'choice' above life etc. I definitely tend to consider it through as much as I can when I place my solitary vote, because I know that every single one counts so much for whatever side of the debate we fall down on.

It is not just a question of the right to privacy/the rights of the unborn/ the right to choose - there is fundamental disagreement on this issue , millions of women have abortions and tens of thousands of people facilitate those abortions - some may think this is murder on a genocidal scale , but those that really count don't. Until you convince those people of your point of view it is all really academic.

Are you saying some people don't count?

When I referred to safeguards I meant regulating the position so that unlike Ireland where under certain circumstances technically (as far as I am aware) one can have an abortion up until the baby pops out of the womb

Can you please clarify your reasoning as to why a baby is not a dependant until it falls out of the womb and beyond, or a few weeks earlier when it's heart starts beating and is potentially a person albeit a dependant innocent one? Why are babies more special if they are born and dependant or forming and dependant - I don't understand this, and I'm not being funny, I really don't -

I know, and have heard the 'person' arguement, but equally it sounds hard edged and cold and daft as regards how we value life, most particularly the dependant people who are among the ones that give the most pleasure to meet and care for, old and young or infirm.

As far as I can make out, in countries that have actually voted for 'choice' with abortion, there is a slippery slope because there is no 'value' other than some arbitrary notion of biology, which can't exactly describe and never should what the value of a human being is, or their potential.

Can you guarantee that people won't eventually abort a boy to have a girl or vice versa, it may sound like somewhat of a futuristic thing - but it IS on the cards, and that will be called a 'choice' too and an unborn child a clump of cells. It seems if a child is wanted it's called a 'baby' by it's pregnant mum, if not it's called something else??

I understand it's a difficult debate, but equally so it's difficult for women too to change the definition of a child - it's huge! There are also very many men who know they may have a child, but resign themselves to the idea that their offspring are a womans choice to terminate, and very many are dead beat dads too -

I just feel that there has to be a better way, and I don't like peer pressure or feeling that conformity is always the best thing, or that not to do so is necessarily equivalent to being petulant or indeed ignorant, or indeed that other nations have everything sorted when they really truely haven't.

I don't see 'choice' in this instance, as the ultimate expression of 'progressing', I don't necessarily equate devaluing new human life and it's potential as 'progress', but recognise the women who feel there is no alternative and I think our country tries to do it's best for them too, the best we can for a mum and child after they have sex and conceive and beyond it - . We could do better, no doubt - but that's where the debate imo should go, and could possibly focus a little more.

marienbad · 02-03-2012 11:08pm

Imaopml- it is a bit more that choice being at the top of the chain though. There is a fundamental disagreement on this question and that being the case I don't see how it is right to force anyone to a particular point of view.

The right to choose allows each to act according to their own conscience .

When I said some people don't count I mean you or I can be horrified all we want but in the final analysis the woman herself makes that decision. And there will be always someplace to facilitate the choice .

I don't really want to get into the issue of abortion being right or wrong and up to what time and so on.. as I said earlier when asked for my opinion in a real case I came down emphatically on the side of continuing the pregnancy to term and if it arises again I would tender that same advice and support. But others may honourably have a different view. It is a matter of individual conscience.

As regards the slippery slope argument - I don't really think so , there is no real evidence for that, not in the western democracies anyway. If anything as Ireland has shown it is the reverse , when the abortion referendum was won the campaign ( despite assurances to the contrary before the vote) moved on to information/travel and who knows where that would have ended morning after/ivf/stem cell - all decided by the courts.

lmaopml · 03-03-2012 12:04am

marienbad wrote: »

Imaopml- it is a bit more that choice being at the top of the chain though. There is a fundamental disagreement on this question and that being the case I don't see how it is right to force anyone to a particular point of view.

Please articulate the fundamental disagreement.

The right to choose allows each to act according to their own conscience .

When I said some people don't count I mean you or I can be horrified all we want but in the final analysis the woman herself makes that decision. And there will be always someplace to facilitate the choice .

I know this, I hate that women feel that there is nothing else other than the 'bad' people that value the child and the 'good' people who offer a 'fix' to the situation - neither is totally admirable or adequate.

I don't really want to get into the issue of abortion being right or wrong and up to what time and so on.. as I said earlier when asked for my opinion in a real case I came down emphatically on the side of continuing the pregnancy to term and if it arises again I would tender that same advice and support. But others may honourably have a different view. It is a matter of individual conscience.

I understand Marien, but I think family can support eachother and conscience can be guided, and a nation can be heroic and uphold good things sometimes - maybe I'm an old romantic - but it seems to me that not conforming to reducing value of human life at it's most tender and being honest about that is not exactly a persuit that is necessarily not worthwhile.

Going with the tide is easy for any said and led society, sleeping dogs sleep, swimming against it, or being among the last outposts is not a dreadful thing, in fact swimming against the tide with conviction in some instances, such as the value of the unborn, which directly links to the value of every dependant, is when one is most alive imo anyway.

As regards the slippery slope argument - I don't really think so , there is no real evidence for that, not in the western democracies anyway. If anything as Ireland has shown it is the reverse , when the abortion referendum was won the campaign ( despite assurances to the contrary before the vote) moved on to information/travel and who knows where that would have ended morning after/ivf/stem cell - all decided by the courts.

We're discussing abortion though, lets not get swayed. Has availability of abortion solved reducing abortions? Or what exactly has it solved? At what cost?

My interest would not lie so much in 'choice' but in reducing the simple fact that women feel abortion is the only way out - yes we can fix it and give them the 'way' as a society, should we decide that's the way forward collectively and it becomes another health procedure that is awful, but a necessity.

I just wonder at the wisdom of where exactly that leaves 'women' ultimately, not to mention exactly what the value of a human life is worth, in all it's frailty, from beginning to end.

I do understand though Marien what you are saying, and while I empathise I don't feel obligated or convinced - perhaps ironically because of my feminism, and love of being a woman, which I sense in you too.

MrPudding · 03-03-2012 4:31pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

It seems that freedom of choice doesn't extend to midwives in the U.K. who don't want to participate in or oversee an abortion.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/british-court-rules-catholic-midwives-can-be-forced-to-participate-in-abort

Just a little more detail on this one. First of all, the right to conscientiously object is qualified, it is restricted to objecting to direct participation in abortions. These women did not directly participate in abortion and their desire not to was and is respected.

When they applied for and accepted the particular jobs they hold they knew what went on.

From the judgement:

Lady Smith wrote:

They knowingly accepted that these duties were to be part of their job. They can be taken to have known that their professional body, the Royal College of Nursing, takes the view that the right of conscientious objection is limited and extends only to active participation in the termination.

They have to supervise, delegate and support other midwives that are directly involved in abortions as well as support the women having them. when they accepted the role of labour ward supervisors it was know to them that this was part of the job.

So a bit of a non story really.

MrP

qrrgprgua · 03-03-2012 8:26pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Just a little more detail on this one. First of all, the right to conscientiously object is qualified, it is restricted to objecting to direct participation in abortions. These women did not directly participate in abortion and their desire not to was and is respected.

When they applied for and accepted the particular jobs they hold they knew what went on.

From the judgement:

They have to supervise, delegate and support other midwives that are directly involved in abortions as well as support the women having them. when they accepted the role of labour ward supervisors it was know to them that this was part of the job.

So a bit of a non story really.

MrP

Abortions is not an action like smoking when you can walk away. Abortion is the murder of innocent lives, Christians can neither oversee, Support, vote for abortion.

Abortion for Christians has a clear marked link. If you cross it, you leave you faith behind because abortion can't be compatible with faith. You shall not kill.

MrPudding · 03-03-2012 11:48pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Abortions is not an action like smoking when you can walk away. Abortion is the murder of innocent lives, Christians can neither oversee, Support, vote for abortion.

Abortion for Christians has a clear marked link. If you cross it, you leave you faith behind because abortion can't be compatible with faith. You shall not kill.

So don't take the job then.

MrP

marienbad · 03-03-2012 11:56pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Abortions is not an action like smoking when you can walk away. Abortion is the murder of innocent lives, Christians can neither oversee, Support, vote for abortion.

Abortion for Christians has a clear marked link. If you cross it, you leave you faith behind because abortion can't be compatible with faith. You shall not kill.

I might have sympathy with that argument if these were duties introduced after someone took the job , but that is not the case. Society is full of examples of people acting according to their conscience and not expecting changes just to accomodate them. For example that lad from Scotland won't play rugby on Sunday - he takes the hit and misses out on representing his country or all those conscientous objectors during the wars .

HamletOrHecuba · 04-03-2012 2:51am

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Abortions is not an action like smoking when you can walk away. Abortion is the murder of innocent lives, Christians can neither oversee, Support, vote for abortion.

Abortion for Christians has a clear marked link. If you cross it, you leave you faith behind because abortion can't be compatible with faith. You shall not kill.

Early abortion is NOT the murder of an innocent life.

Its on a par with contraception which is sinful, its a sin, but not the sin of murder in the first trimester at least.

Epilnogis · 05-03-2012 8:47am

Abortion is an extremely hard choice for the mother. I'm not going for it, but I'm certainly not against it.

qrrgprgua · 05-03-2012 9:48am

Epilnogis wrote: »

Abortion is an extremely hard choice for the mother. I'm not going for it, but I'm certainly not against it.

Well for Christians you can't be against it personally but not care what other people do.

its are hard choice because its killing a baby. Its Murder. And its wrong.

qrrgprgua · 05-03-2012 9:50am

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Early abortion is NOT the murder of an innocent life.

Its on a par with contraception which is sinful, its a sin, but not the sin of murder in the first trimester at least.

It IS the Murder of an innocent life. This thread is in a Christian Forum.. Are you expecting Christians to Change their beliefs?

I can only speak for my Church, the Catholic Church, But most other Churchs share this same belief.

Its not Contraception, its murder of a defacto existing unique human being.

Epilnogis · 05-03-2012 9:56am

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Well for Christians you can't be against it personally but not care what other people do.

its are hard choice because its killing a baby. Its Murder. And its wrong.

Well, it's each to their own. It's definitely not wrong, it would be better to give a baby no life at all then to have them end up having a terrible one.

Robin 2012 · 05-03-2012 10:06am

Hi all,

I think its a bit of a "taboo" area people frown upon it like its the worst thing in the world! Personally I think it should be allowed at the end of the day its the persons decision and it should be respected as it would also have a big effect on them without people going on about laws and rules and about what people might say. Some people plan pregnancy but belive it or not most of people have unplanned pregnancies and I think there should be someone there to talk to about the opptions and if the person is still unhappy they should be able to have an abotion. I dont see why what other people say and do have anything got to do with it. Its the person who is pregnant and the partner if there is one involed whos decision it is so something should be there for them as a choice.

Epilnogis · 05-03-2012 10:09am

Robin 2012 wrote: »

Hi all,

I think its a bit of a "taboo" area people frown upon it like its the worst thing in the world! Personally I think it should be allowed at the end of the day its the persons decision and it should be respected as it would also have a big effect on them without people going on about laws and rules and about what people might say. Some people plan pregnancy but belive it or not most of people have unplanned pregnancies and I think there should be someone there to talk to about the opptions and if the person is still unhappy they should be able to have an abotion. I dont see why what other people say and do have anything got to do with it. Its the person who is pregnant and the partner if there is one involed whos decision it is so something should be there for them as a choice.

I agree, if someone doesn't like it doesn't mean that should argue with the person who is getting the abortion. But that's the same vica versa. If someone chooses not to get an abortion shouldn't give the other person a right to argue with them about it.

Robin 2012 · 05-03-2012 12:11pm

I dont see how its "murder" because the gender ect ect hasnt even been devoloped you can get very scientific with it but at the end of the day I dont think its murder. Does that mean that "the morning after pill" is murder? Would masterbation be a form of murder or am i way off the mark????? Regardless of race or religion the persons happyness should ALWAYS come first no matter if people agree or disagree.

Robin

smokingman · 05-03-2012 3:57pm

If this definition of "murder" is held to, then the logical conclusion is that if a man has unprotected sex with a woman and there is no subsequent pregnancy, it's highly likely that embryos failed to attach to the womb and the man is therefore guilty of "murder" of these embryos, these babies that were denied life due to the mans inability to impregnate properly and who will go to your "hell" as a murderer.

Think about that the next time you shun contraception.

qrrgprgua · 05-03-2012 6:51pm

Epilnogis wrote: »

Well, it's each to their own. It's definitely not wrong, it would be better to give a baby no life at all then to have them end up having a terrible one.

It is wrong.. Who are you or I or the mother to say that a child does not deserve life?

That's the whole problem with Abortion. It brings the value of the person down to what another person thinks.

Its 100% wrong, its murder. For a Christian there is not room for debate on this right or wrong of this subject. Abortion is wrong.

gimmebroadband · 06-03-2012 5:51pm

Horrific!!

Pepsi, drug, food, and cosmetic companies uses aborted baby cells and tissues says scientist!

Rebecca Taylor, a Technologist in Molecular Biology, has compiled a list of companies that use cells and tissues derived from aborted babies to develop their products, which range from childhood vaccines to cosmetics. Her list includes one English company, ReNeuron, which has applied for clinical trials in the United States.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/its-not-just-pepsi-drug-food-cosmetic-companies-use-aborted-baby-cells-says

gimmebroadband · 10-03-2012 6:32pm

When society accepts that the killing of the unborn is justified, it's only a matter of time before there is a call to justify the killing of a newborn!

Ethicists call for killing of newborns to be made legal.

The article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” states in its abstract: “After-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/02/29/ethicists-call-for-killing-of-newborns-to-be-made-legal/

qrrgprgua · 10-03-2012 9:48pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

When society accepts that the killing of the unborn is justified, it's only a matter of time before there is a call to justify the killing of a newborn!

Ethicists call for killing of newborns to be made legal.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/02/29/ethicists-call-for-killing-of-newborns-to-be-made-legal/

The article, written by Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of Melbourne University, argues that “foetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons” and consequently a law which permits abortion for certain reasons should permit infanticide on the same grounds.

Sure we already have it plain and simply today.. Killing a Child a 22 weeks is killing a viable feeling human being.

Are we going to revert to ancient greece where disabled children were thrown off a cliff.

Reading the link article brings back all the attitudes of Nazi Germany... Its quoted a lot for a reason.. they cheapen life. And killing a Child is the worst thing a woman can do.

MrPudding · 11-03-2012 9:38am

gimmebroadband wrote: »

When society accepts that the killing of the unborn is justified, it's only a matter of time before there is a call to justify the killing of a newborn!

Ethicists call for killing of newborns to be made legal.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/02/29/ethicists-call-for-killing-of-newborns-to-be-made-legal/

Have you not already been corrected on this? Apologies if it was not you. This article was an intellectual exercise in ethics. They are not calling for the killing of newborns to be made legal.

MrP

gimmebroadband · 11-03-2012 10:43am

MrPudding wrote: »

Have you not already been corrected on this? Apologies if it was not you. This article was an intellectual exercise in ethics. They are not calling for the killing of newborns to be made legal.

MrP

It was not me that was 'corrected' it must have been someone else!

They are not calling for the killing of newborns 'yet'! They are obviously testing the waters to see what the reaction would be! The ethical bar has gotten so low these past few decades, anything is possible!

dj357 · 22-03-2012 2:16am

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Sure we already have it plain and simply today.. Killing a Child a 22 weeks is killing a viable feeling human being.

Erm.. no. Not even close.

Peer-reviewed research refuting that - http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.full.pdf
And an article citing and clarifying that research in regard to someone else's claims of the same - http://atheistelephant.com/2012/03/among-other-things-abby-johnson-didnt-pay-attention-in-biology-part-ii/

The whole issue of what is a human being and what is not is not something that can be argued on the basis of religious convictions, teachings and/or doctrines. It can only be argued on the basis of the actual science i.e. what we like to call independently verifiable facts.

Tea 1000 · 22-03-2012 10:26am

dj357 wrote: »

Erm.. no. Not even close.

Peer-reviewed research refuting that - http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.full.pdf
And an article citing and clarifying that research in regard to someone else's claims of the same - http://atheistelephant.com/2012/03/among-other-things-abby-johnson-didnt-pay-attention-in-biology-part-ii/

The whole issue of what is a human being and what is not is not something that can be argued on the basis of religious convictions, teachings and/or doctrines. It can only be argued on the basis of the actual science i.e. what we like to call independently verifiable facts.

Your post doesn't make sense. Are you saying that only a person who can feel pain is a verifiable human?
If you want a fact, here is one. A human fetus is a human. That's a verifiable fact.

charlietheminxx · 22-03-2012 1:45pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

It was not me that was 'corrected' it must have been someone else!

They are not calling for the killing of newborns 'yet'! They are obviously testing the waters to see what the reaction would be! The ethical bar has gotten so low these past few decades, anything is possible!

Ridiculous assumption. Consipiracy Theories Forum is that way

>

dj357 · 22-03-2012 2:35pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Your post doesn't make sense. Are you saying that only a person who can feel pain is a verifiable human?
If you want a fact, here is one. A human fetus is a human. That's a verifiable fact.

If you had read the linked article you would understand that are many stages of development a fetus goes through before it passes into the realm of being a thinking, feeling human being. qrrgprgua said that a 22 week fetus is a "viable feeling human being" and I provided an article and research proving this is not the case as the actual physical pathways for experiencing pain simply do not exist at 22 weeks and any other signs of 'feeling' can be shown to be merely 'knee-jerk' responses, none of which break the boundary point past which we ascribe the term 'human being'.

Ok, so for clarity are you saying a human fetus is 'a human' in the regard that it has hopes and dreams and thoughts and rights, or merely that it contains human DNA, or some other definition? It's necessary to understand your definitions before we attempt to verify your 'fact'.

Morbert · 22-03-2012 5:36pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Your post doesn't make sense. Are you saying that only a person who can feel pain is a verifiable human?
If you want a fact, here is one. A human fetus toenail is a human. That's a verifiable fact.

Fixed.

The question is note merely "Is it human". The question is "Is it a human being"?

Tea 1000 · 22-03-2012 5:53pm

dj357 wrote: »

Ok, so for clarity are you saying a human fetus is 'a human' in the regard that it has hopes and dreams and thoughts and rights, or merely that it contains human DNA, or some other definition? It's necessary to understand your definitions before we attempt to verify your 'fact'.

Now you're getting it. You need to see what I mean by "human" before you can ascertain whether I'm right or not, which is to say that I might be, depending on what I meant.
Therefore, your statement of fact is only what you consider as fact given your parameters that you used to define your argument.

Tea 1000 · 22-03-2012 5:55pm

Morbert wrote: »

Fixed.

The question is note merely "Is it human". The question is "Is it a human being"?

I'm sorry, but you didn't fix my statement, it makes no sense after your modification.

Zombrex · 22-03-2012 6:23pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

If you want a fact, here is one. A human fetus is a human. That's a verifiable fact.

So is a human sperm cell. No one here thinks it is immoral to kill a human sperm cell, even a second before the fertilization process starts.

Being biologically human has never been a reason to protect anything.

qrrgprgua · 22-03-2012 10:46pm

Zombrex wrote: »

So is a human sperm cell. No one here thinks it is immoral to kill a human sperm cell, even a second before the fertilization process starts.

Being biologically human has never been a reason to protect anything.

The sperm is not a person.. It can't become a person. The Fertilized egg is a person.

If you want us to change our beliefs on the respect for life.. you are in the wrong forum.

Zombrex · 22-03-2012 11:13pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The sperm is not a person.. It can't become a person. The Fertilized egg is a person.

That is based entirely on what the definition of "person" is. Your definition of a "person" seems to be based on the supernatural concept of a soul. I would be very interested how you demonstrate that the soul enters the human body at the moment of conception, particularly in the case of identical twins.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

If you want us to change our beliefs on the respect for life.. you are in the wrong forum.

By "life" I assume you mean "human life" (since you don't respect all life) and by "human life" I assume you mean "human person" (since you don't respect all human life)

Fanny Cradock · 22-03-2012 11:25pm

Zombrex wrote: »

That is based entirely on what the definition of "person" is. Your definition of a "person" seems to be based on the supernatural concept of a soul. I would be very interested how you demonstrate that the soul enters the human body at the moment of conception, particularly in the case of identical twins.

From the post you quoted it looks like qrrgprgua is saying something quite different. I think the clue is in the part that goes "The Fertilized egg is a person".

Zombrex · 22-03-2012 11:27pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

From the post you quoted it looks like qrrgprgua is saying something quite different. I think the clue is in the part that goes "The Fertilized egg is a person".

You will need to expand on that Fanny, I don't see what you see in qrrgprgua post.

Peregrinus · 23-03-2012 2:11am

Zombrex wrote: »

You will need to expand on that Fanny, I don't see what you see in qrrgprgua post.

I gotta say that I see it. Fanny quote's qrrgprgua's post and, on examination, right enought, the words she attributes to qrrgprgua's post do in fact appear there: "The Fertilized egg is a person."

By contrast, what you say about qrrgprgua's position ("Your definition of a "person" seems to be based on the supernatural concept of a soul") doesn't seem to me to be based on anything in qrrgprgua's post. There is no common concept of "soul" in which "soul" = "fertilised egg".

Keep abortion out of Ireland

Comments