Keep abortion out of Ireland

FullblownRose

I've said it a few times already (I don't know if you happened to read the earlier threads). I don't accept comparisons to murder or frenzied attacks on people. I notice the people who reject pro abortion views as 'emotive and illogical'' often like to make such comparisons which are highly emotive and skewed.

FullblownRose

As far as I'm concerned, forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancy is 'doing wrong' it's abhorrent and disguting and tantamount to rape in my eyes. If we're going to make dramatic comparisons!

StudentDad

FullblownRose wrote: »

I've said it a few times already (I don't know if you happened to read the earlier threads). I don't accept comparisons to murder or frenzied attacks on people. I notice the people who reject pro abortion views as 'emotive and illogical'' often like to make such comparisons which are highly emotive and skewed.

The worst case scenario. The horrible outcome. All of these are trotted out as a means to create moral panic. The bald truth is that individuals are free to choose their own path and no church has the authority to impose their moral belief on them. The citizen is protected by the state from cults and other religious organisations who would seek to undermine freedom of thought and freedom of action. No matter how the church and other religious bodies or organisations dress it up, a moral stance on a given topic is still just an opinion and that church or group has no authority to impose that opinion on any citizen of the state.


SD

D.L.R.

Brer Fox wrote: »

People who want to do wrong ought to be stopped. As an example, if I want to attack an old lady, I ought to be stopped by the security services.

The nutter who killed his lover and posted it online had freedom to make his own decision. However, he was not acting in a truly human way.

Human beings are free to do what is right. True freedom is not the freedom to do whatever you like, but the freedom to do what is right, whilst the option to do the contrary is always there.

What's right for you might not be right for others. How about you leave others to live their lives and let the law take care of the crazies.

I don't need to be told how to live by religious types. If you're religious, fine. Don't expect me to be and you won't be disappointed when you find I'm not.

Pro choice. End of story.

PS banning it in Ireland doesn't stop it happening. If you care so much about huma life go to the third world and help out there, plenty to be done.

FullblownRose

I really didn't want to be predictable and say something horrid like ''no womb no opinion'' but I can see why people do say that now. Fair play to those who respect women and families and children enough to recognise the need for choice in this matter.

StudentDad

Brer Fox wrote: »

People who want to do wrong ought to be stopped. As an example, if I want to attack an old lady, I ought to be stopped by the security services.

Yes you should be stopped - not because it is immoral to attack old ladies but because it is an attack on a citizen of the State and ultimately an attack on the State itself. It has nothing to do with god.

The nutter who killed his lover and posted it online had freedom to make his own decision. However, he was not acting in a truly human way.

Again whether or not he was acting in a human way is irrelevant. He was acting against the State and for that deserves punishment - for the protection of the State and himself.

Human beings are free to do what is right. True freedom is not the freedom to do whatever you like, but the freedom to do what is right, whilst the option to do the contrary is always there.

What is 'right' is totally subjective and again irrelevant in terms of mans relationship with a god or other supernatural being. Ultimately what is right and wrong is determined by society. Not by 'god' or anyones conception of what 'god' may or may not like.

SD

Brer Fox

StudentDad wrote: »

The worst case scenario. The horrible outcome. All of these are trotted out as a means to create moral panic. The bald truth is that individuals are free to choose their own path and no church has the authority to impose their moral belief on them. The citizen is protected by the state from cults and other religious organisations who would seek to undermine freedom of thought and freedom of action. No matter how the church and other religious bodies or organisations dress it up, a moral stance on a given topic is still just an opinion and that church or group has no authority to impose that opinion on any citizen of the state.


SD

Well then, what if I were to say that murder is fine, and that the state and churches ought to mind their own business? Who are you or they to pass judgement on me or my actions? Why does the state impose its morality about murder on me? I am a free individual, surely?

Like it or not, abortion is the same as murder - the killing on an innocent human person. It is a crime and a grave sin.

StudentDad

Brer Fox wrote: »

Well then, what if I were to say that murder is fine, and that the state and churches ought to mind their own business? Who are you or they to pass judgement on me or my actions? Why does the state impose its morality about murder on me? I am a free individual, surely?

You are not a free individual. You are bound by law and in law murder is a criminal offence. An attack on a citizen of the State and an attack on the State itself.

Like it or not, abortion is the same as murder - the killing on an innocent human person. It is a crime and a grave sin.

That is your opinion, nothing more.

SD

FullblownRose

Brer Fox wrote: »

Well then, what if I were to say that murder is fine, and that the state and churches ought to mind their own business? Who are you or they to pass judgement on me or my actions? Why does the state impose its morality about murder on me? I am a free individual, surely?

Like it or not, abortion is the same as murder - the killing on an innocent human person. It is a crime and a grave sin.

Abortion isn't a crime in almost every developed nation in the world. Sins don't apply to those of us who aren't religious.

Brer Fox

FullblownRose wrote: »

Abortion isn't a crime in almost every developed nation in the world. Sins don't apply to those of us who aren't religious.

Padre Pio was asked what he thought about modern people who didn't believe in hell. “They'll believe in hell when they get there.” he replied.

FullblownRose

That's very witty of Padre.

StudentDad

Brer Fox wrote: »

Padre Pio was asked what he thought about modern people who didn't believe in hell. “They'll believe in hell when they get there.” he replied.

Ah yes the fear treatment again. Believe in what we say or else. Not very Christian to me.

SD

Brer Fox

StudentDad wrote: »

Ah yes the fear treatment again. Believe in what we say or else. Not very Christian to me.

SD

If I see a brother about to stumble over a cliff, do I love him by remaining silent? Or do I call him away from the precipice?

FullblownRose

It's a religious forum and there's been v. little proseletyzing, which I think is very fair. Shame to start now, Brer Fox.

StudentDad

Brer Fox wrote: »

If I see a brother about to stumble over a cliff, do I love him by remaining silent? Or do I call him away from the precipice?

He chose to be on the edge of the cliff. Perhaps you could just respect his decision to be there and trust that whatever happens he has chosen that path.

SD

FullblownRose

Maybe he likes it there. Good view. Some of the best things in life can be found over the edges of precipices.

Brer Fox

FullblownRose wrote: »

Maybe he likes it there. Good view. Some of the best things in life can be found over the edges of precipices.

Yeah but it's not just about him - his family and friends are left behind. In the case of abortion, it's not just about her, it's also about the little person who is facing death.

StudentDad

Brer Fox wrote: »

Yeah but it's not just about him - his family and friends are left behind. In the case of abortion, it's not just about her, it's also about the little person who is facing death.

Ah yes the emotive language again - fuel the imagination - fuel the fear? - Family and friends should be able to separate his individuality from their own and as such respect his decision. They may not like it but as an individual he is free to decide for himself.

SD

lmaopml

StudentDad wrote: »

Ah yes the emotive language again - fuel the imagination - fuel the fear? - Family and friends should be able to separate his individuality from their own and as such respect his decision. They may not like it but as an individual he is free to decide for himself.

SD

Do you not understand emotive language Student Dad? The appeal to some kind of 'common sense' - Is there something wrong with using this on anothers behalf, but it's ok to use it for you, because........

StudentDad

lmaopml wrote: »

Do you not understand emotive language Student Dad? The appeal to some kind of 'common sense' - Is there something wrong with using this on anothers behalf, but it's ok to use it for you, because........

The scenario outlined is that of someone walking along a cliff. You can yell and perhaps startle that individual and maybe cause that individual to stumble and fall. The better course is to accept that the individual is there by their own volition and whatever happens, as an individual is entitled to make his own decisions.

Hopping up and down and using emotive language merely confuses the issue and is wholly irrelevant to the discussion.

SD

lmaopml

StudentDad wrote: »

The scenario outlined is that of someone walking along a cliff. You can yell and perhaps startle that individual and maybe cause that individual to stumble and fall. The better course is to accept that the individual is there by their own volition and whatever happens, as an individual is entitled to make his own decisions.

Hopping up and down and using emotive language merely confuses the issue and is wholly irrelevant to the discussion.

SD

When you are facing the edge of a cliff everything is relevant. In particular how valuable you think you are.

StudentDad

lmaopml wrote: »

When you are facing the edge of a cliff everything is relevant. In particular how valuable you think you are.

If an individual is in that position it is for him to decide what's what. Nobody else.

How on earth did we get onto this tangent anyway?

SD

lmaopml

StudentDad wrote: »

If an individual is in that position it is for him to decide what's what. Nobody else.

How on earth did we get onto this tangent anyway?

SD

Meh, I directed it that way, sorry I don't mean harm at all sincerely, I've seen a lot of those who teeter on the edge - it's difficult to distinguish the cliff.

You are right though it's for the individual to decide and when they free fall it's up to the society that enabled that to capture and embrace them, but they seldom do, and unfortunately it's mostly the woman who buries it.

PDN

StudentDad wrote: »

Ah yes the emotive language again - fuel the imagination - fuel the fear? - Family and friends should be able to separate his individuality from their own and as such respect his decision. They may not like it but as an individual he is free to decide for himself.

SD

StudentDad is here using an age-old psychological trick - one that justifies the destruction of a person by dehumanising them.

Brer Fox, quite accurately, referred to an unborn child as 'a little person'. Those who would legalise the killing of such little people are very keen to dehumanise that little person by using alternative terms that make him/her sound more like an appendix than a person.

Regimes which employ torture first train their torturers to see their victims as non-human - callling them 'rats' or 'dogs'. This is because the torturers might show compassion to their victims if they see them as people.

Similarly, in the Rwandad genocide, Hutu radio stations dehumanised the Tutu's by repeatedly referring to them as 'cockroaches'. It is, of course, easier to kill a cockroach than a human being.

The Nazis, before launching their Final Solution, waged a propaganda war in which cartoonists portrayed Jews as monkeys or as monstrous spiders.

And let's not forget, of course, attitudes in the southern United States where apologists for slavery justified the practice by claiming that blacks lacked a soul, or were less than fully human.

So, Brer Fox, don't be discouraged by those who cry 'foul' when you use a perfectly good term like 'little person'. An unborn baby is a little person. Just like the Tutu's were people, as were the Jews, as were the blacks.

FullblownRose wrote:

Abortion isn't a crime in almost every developed nation in the world. Sins don't apply to those of us who aren't religious.

This is bunk on several levels:
1. You are in the Christianity Forum. If you get upset at references to sin then I suggest you discuss this elsewhere.
2. Slavery is a crime in almost every developed nation in the world. And the reason it is a crime is because religious people campaigned against slavery on account of it being sinful.
3. Sin actually does apply to those of you who aren't religious. The fact you try to ignore it does not mean that it doesn't apply.

It's a religious forum and there's been v. little proseletyzing, which I think is very fair. Shame to start now, Brer Fox.

(Puts Mod Hat On)
I suggest you leave it to the mods to decide what is appropriate in the Christianity Forum. Shame on you for trying to limit discussion of religious matters in a religious forum. Try going into the Soccer forum and try telling someone off for bringing football into a discussion.

MadsL

PDN wrote: »

2. Slavery is a crime in almost every developed nation in the world. And the reason it is a crime is because religious people campaigned against slavery on account of it being sinful.

Really? The New Testament seems quite content with slavery.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. (Luke 12:47-48)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

Funny how, if it was so sinful, that it was practiced by many Christians up until 150 years ago.

I think the abolition of slavery might be a little more socially and politically complex than a group of Christians suddenly deciding it was a sin.

Rather you might want to read up on Natural Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Splendour

FullblownRose wrote: »

Again, I on't see how it's comparable to violent crime. As far as I'm aware, it's painless to the foetus if it's performe before 18 weeks gestation. The only possible element of cruelty I'm aware of is the denial of the future potential of the foetus.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1319373/The-foetus-broke-big-smile--aged-17-weeks.html

PDN

MadsL wrote: »

Really? The New Testament seems quite content with slavery.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. (Luke 12:47-48)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

Funny how, if it was so sinful, that it was practiced by many Christians up until 150 years ago.

I think the abolition of slavery might be a little more socially and politically complex than a group of Christians suddenly deciding it was a sin.

Rather you might want to read up on Natural Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

If you really want to troll about slavery don't derail this thread to do it.

Meanwhile I suggest you brush up on theology and history to avoid committing schoolboy howlers such as imagining that the details of a parable are somehow prescriptive for Christian morality. :rolleyes:

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

And that does not make the action right.

I know of a woman who suffered post-partum depression and killed her baby and her toddler too. Do you see that I could make the exact same kind of arguments that you and others are making here?

a) Look how much she suffered.
b) She has to live with the consequences of her actions, nobody else but her.
c) Nobody else has the right to make that decision for her.
d) Just because people's religious views lead them to think that it is wrong to kill babies and toddlers, they have no right to enforce their religious views on others.
e) It's nobody's business but hers.

But that doesn't mean that we should change the law to allow people to kill babies and toddlers. And that indicates that the arguments being repeatedly used by the pro-abortion lobby in this thread are pretty bankrupt.

I am not sure this is a great analogy, to be honest. For a start, there is no need to change the law in this area. Whilst the killing of a new born and a toddler is a terrible and sad thing, society and the law have already decided that people that carry out this kind of act are not necessarily murderers, at the very least they will have a partial defence but could even have a full acquittal. No need to change the law. You might not like that, but it doesn’t change the fact.

The fragility of humans is regularly taken into account by the law, it is written into statues and accepted as mitigation by judges. I don’t see how this would be any different.

Brer Fox wrote: »

Like it or not, abortion is the same as murder - the killing on an innocent human person. It is a crime and a grave sin.

Abortion is not murder and it most certainly is not a crime in countries where it is allowed. There is abortion in the UK, it is neither murder, nor is it a crime. I think you will find this is the case in any country where there are abortions available.

You misuse the word murder. I understand to want to make an emotional point. I understand you want to show how much you deplore the act. I understand you want to make the women who feel they need a abortion feel bad and try to demonise them as part of you campaign. But the simple fact of the matter is this; the word murder has a very specific meaning. It means a very specific thing. As a result of this it does not apply in cases of abortion in jurisdictions where abortion is legal. Even in places where abortion is not legal it is still unlikely to be the correct term as a foetus generally will not legally fulfil the requirements for the being that has to be unlawfully killed for there to be a murder.

Perhaps it is a pedantic point, but the misuse of this word annoys me. I appreciate that the pro-life guys like it for the perceived emotional impact, but it is simply wrong.

MrP

FullblownRose

Splendour wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1319373/The-foetus-broke-big-smile--aged-17-weeks.html

I don't read the daily fail on moral grounds. Is it my turn to link to propaganda now?

Sin City

MrPudding wrote: »

You misuse the word murder. I understand to want to make an emotional point. I understand you want to show how much you deplore the act. I understand you want to make the women who feel they need a abortion feel bad and try to demonise them as part of you campaign. But the simple fact of the matter is this; the word murder has a very specific meaning. It means a very specific thing. As a result of this it does not apply in cases of abortion in jurisdictions where abortion is legal. Even in places where abortion is not legal it is still unlikely to be the correct term as a foetus generally will not legally fulfil the requirements for the being that has to be unlawfully killed for there to be a murder.

Perhaps it is a pedantic point, but the misuse of this word annoys me. I appreciate that the pro-life guys like it for the perceived emotional impact, but it is simply wrong.

MrP

Would execution be a better fit?