Abortion debate thread

firemansam4

crazy cabbage wrote: »

And that is my problem.

My friend that was raped. She wasn't catholic. None of her family was catholic. But because of the beliefs of those around her she was refused an abortion in this country.

You are properly right though. It saddens me but you properly are and this is why i hate catholicism. I would consider myself a follower of Jesus in that i try and live a good life. I mean i have read the bible (and alot of the other major religious books). But a follower of the crap that is pined on Jesus by religious institutions down through the ages. No i am not a follower.

The very fact that people object to abortion on the grounds that their religion tells them to sadness be greatly. That is what this tread is about.
Are you pro-choice and catholic? Well then you are a hypocrite.

If you are catholic and had sex before marrage are you also a hypocrite?
What about being a catholic and supporting gay marriage?

It really does make me sad.

If someone is a Catholic and wants to practice the faith of a catholic why would it sadden you that they would want to practice there beliefs?

Like I said earlier yes there are things like not going to mass every week or having sex before marriage which may be wrong in the eyes of the religion but not classed as a mortal sin like the killing of an innocent life ( As we would view it being catholic). I don't think its fair to compare them.

Manc-Red

firemansam4 wrote: »

If someone is a Catholic and wants to practice the faith of a catholic why would it sadden you that they would want to practice there beliefs?

Like I said earlier yes there are things like not going to mass every week or having sex before marriage which may be wrong in the eyes of the religion but not classed as a mortal sin like the killing of an innocent life ( As we would view it being catholic). I don't think its fair to compare them.

Mortal Sins.....

Like a priest abusing children?

Galwayguy35

I'd be pro life personally but at the same time don't feel I have the right to tell others what to do.

I think arguing about it is a waste of time as none of us are going to change our view whichever side we are on.

endacl

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'd be pro life personally but at the same time don't feel I have the right to tell others what to do.

I think arguing about it is a waste of time as none of us are going to change our view whichever side we are on.

Not so sure about that. If you're interested, go and look up opinion polls on the matter from 10, 20 or 30 years ago and see how opinion has changed. The times they are a changin'.

firemansam4

Manc-Red wrote: »

Mortal Sins.....

Like a priest abusing children?

If you want to open up a thread on this I would be the very first to agree with you on this and it is one of the things that nearly put me off my faith all together.
But you are now bringing up an entirely different matter now for discussion.

Galwayguy35

endacl wrote: »

Not so sure about that. If you're interested, go and look up opinion polls on the matter from 10, 20 or 30 years ago and see how opinion has changed. The times they are a changin'.

I don't think anyone who is steadfastly either pro life or pro choice will change their mind no matter what, maybe people who would be more middle of the road in their view might, I don't know.

endacl

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I don't think anyone who is steadfastly either pro life or pro choice will change their mind no matter what, maybe people who would be more middle of the road in their view might, I don't know.

The middle of the road views are naturally those open to go either way if it ever came down to a yes/no vote. As Ireland has become (and continues to become) more secular, less religious, more educated, and more outward and forward looking over time and across generations, the middle of the road view will inexorably tend in only one direction. Past trends back this up. I do have a grudging respect for the anti-choice position and the lengths they go to to fight for their cause, but change is inevitable. Its coming. Its just a question of when, and not if.

Galwayguy35

endacl wrote: »

The middle of the road views are naturally those open to go either way if it ever came down to a yes/no vote. As Ireland has become (and continues to become) more secular, less religious, more educated, and more outward and forward looking over time and across generations, the middle of the road view will inexorably tend in only one direction. Past trends back this up. I do have a grudging respect for the anti-choice position and the lengths they go to to fight for their cause, but change is inevitable. Its coming. Its just a question of when, and not if.

I doubt many people would like to see a scenario like next door where there it is available up to 6 months for non medical reasons.

Benny_Cake

Merged with the main abortion debate thread.

crazy cabbage

firemansam4 wrote: »

If someone is a Catholic and wants to practice the faith of a catholic why would it sadden you that they would want to practice there beliefs?

Like i have said i have no problem with people practicing their faith but when your faith gets in the way of my friend who isn't catholic from doing what she belivies is right in her circumstances... That is what sadness me. Have you ever had to hold a crying girl that was raped and try and tell her that it would be ok? She couldn't see any light at the end of the tunnel. For the next 9 months there would be a monster growing inside of her. Have you ever even thought about what some of these women go though? Do you have children. What if it was your daughter that was raped?

That is what sadness me. Because you have a really old book and a very backwards church you think you can judge other peoples morality.

Again i believe it is morally wrong to eat meat. Millions of animals are murdered every year. But again i dont stop everyone else from eating meat.

I don't think anyone who is steadfastly either pro life or pro choice will change their mind no matter what, maybe people who would be more middle of the road in their view might, I don't know.

I think the middle of the road view is pro-choice. Here is my reasoning.

Ireland at present. -Is one side of the road. You simply can not have an abortion
China - one child policy - You can be forced to have an abortion. - the other side of the road
If you are pro-choice in china you are saying. NO, i want to have this child. That is what pro-choice is!

Pro choice is the neutral stance. Because it alows choice and doesn't flat out deny anything or doesn't force anyone to do something they do not wish to do

firemansam4

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Like i have said i have no problem with people practicing their faith but when your faith gets in the way of my friend who isn't catholic from doing what she belivies is right in her circumstances... That is what sadness me. Have you ever had to hold a crying girl that was raped and try and tell her that it would be ok? She couldn't see any light at the end of the tunnel. For the next 9 months there would be a monster growing inside of her. Have you ever even thought about what some of these women go though? Do you have children. What if it was your daughter that was raped?

That is what sadness me. Because you have a really old book and a very backwards church you think you can judge other peoples morality.

Again i believe it is morally wrong to eat meat. Millions of animals are murdered every year. But again i dont stop everyone else from eating meat.

I think the middle of the road view is pro-choice. Here is my reasoning.

Ireland at present. -Is one side of the road. You simply can not have an abortion
China - one child policy - You can be forced to have an abortion. - the other side of the road
If you are pro-choice in china you are saying. NO, i want to have this child. That is what pro-choice is!

Pro choice is the neutral stance. Because it alows choice and doesn't flat out deny anything or doesn't force anyone to do something they do not wish to do

Firstly I am really sorry your friend had to go through such an evil act and it saddens me that there is such evil out there to do something like that.
But I will still always go by my conscience that if I agree to someone else having an abortion then I agree that it is ok for a innocent life to be killed (its my view and I feel I am entitled to vote that way if i so wish)

Now you are comparing eating meat to the process of abortion - I would like to say one thing all religion aside.

Man has been on this earth a long time and we have been built in a way that we have naturally been meat eaters, maybe some day that will change but you cant just change centuries of natural in-stink over night and I don't think you can call any one a hypocrite for being what they were naturally meant to be.
Now on the other hand there is nothing natural about an abortion - it is a medical procedure which has come about. And for someone to say they don't agree to abortion could easily mean they don't agree to the medical procedures of abortion being carried out. you would say that I am denying a womans very right - but when did it become a very right of someone to have an abortion?

Corkfeen

People have been inducing abortions in various ways for thousands of years. You seem to be implying that it only exists as a result of modern medicine. However many methods are considered to be dangerous and people will go ahead with them, why should we allow a circumstance where you endanger a woman's life because of a religious belief. Outlawing abortions altogether results in endangering women's lives as a result of forcing them towards dangerous methods.

crazy cabbage

firemansam4 wrote: »

Man has been on this earth a long time and we have been built in a way that we have naturally been meat eaters, maybe some day that will change but you cant just change centuries of natural in-stink over night and I don't think you can call any one a hypocrite for being what they were naturally meant to be.
Now on the other hand there is nothing natural about an abortion - it is a medical procedure which has come about. And for someone to say they don't agree to abortion could easily mean they don't agree to the medical procedures of abortion being carried out. you would say that I am denying a womans very right - but when did it become a very right of someone to have an abortion?

Does that not mean that we should be built to eat raw meat like ever other meat eating animal? Meat would have been quite rare to our early predecessors.
I am not going to get into the meat debate in this tread but more than willing to discuss it if you wish in a different tread or in pm

Nothing natural about abortion is the same way that there is nothing natural about any medical procedure. Hell there is nothing natural about cooking food. Or wearing clothes. Or a blood transplant. or an aspirin. Or marriage (as in staying with the one mate for life). Or land ownership. Or a lung transplant.

Some thing that are natural might include rape and murder.

Look. I think you get my point. Just because something isn't natural doesn't mean it is evil or wrong.
And just because something is natural does mean that is automatically right in modern society.

Zombrex

firemansam4 wrote: »

but when did it become a very right of someone to have an abortion?

You have (or should have depending on what part of the world you are in) the right to refuse to consent for your bodily integrity to be violated, even if that violation is to sustain the life of another person.

Or to put it another way, even if you consider the foetus to be a full person with rights, that person has no more right to use the woman's body without her consent than you or I do.

Abortion is simply the woman refusing to allow her body to be used like this. A lot is made of it "murdering the child", but that is a deeply inaccurate picture because it ignores that the child is in the mother and using the mothers body in the first place. If the mother refuses to allow this then the child either dies as a result of no longer having the mothers body to sustain himself or dies as a result of the procedure to remove him.

Saying the mother is murdering the child by having an abortion is like saying that if you are in a swimming pool and someone grabs and won't let go and you force them off you, that you have drowned this person. They may very well drown as a result of not hanging on to you (and you may very well both drown if they don't let go), but by merely refusing to allow this person to hang onto your body or by forcibly removing them you are not murdering them.

It is the hight of intellectual dishonesty for the anti-abortion groups to discuss abortion outside of the context of the foetus being inside the woman's body, the context of the foetus using the woman's body and the context of bodily integrity.

editrice

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Have you ever had to hold a crying girl that was raped and try and tell her that it would be ok?

Unfortunately, yes I have.

crazy cabbage wrote: »

She couldn't see any light at the end of the tunnel. For the next 9 months there would be a monster growing inside of her.

Let's leave religion out if this, from a purely secular point of view, there's a major problem here.

Why does modern society continue to stigmatise and promote the innocent children of rape as monsters in order to justify abortion ? Why should an innocent child be labeled a monster and killed for the sins a biological father committed ?

It's time society stopped promoting the stigmatisation and killing of the children of rape and learned to accept them as innocent people.

All these people, including a world surfing champion, were the innocent children of rape and should have been killed before they were born according to some.

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Have you ever even thought about what some of these women go though? Do you have children. What if it was your daughter that was raped?

I'd tell her it was not her fault or the innocent child's fault.

---

Why kill the child ? What crime did they commit ?

It's high time society accepted these children as innocent of any crime.

If necessary, these children can be adopted by the many Irish childless couples only too willing to love and rear them.

There's a huge waiting list in Ireland for couples seeking adoption.

All the following people were conceived as a result of a rape, thankfully they were not 'aborted' or 'terminated' or 'pro choiced' :

http://www.juda4praise.com/Other_Conceived_in_Rape_Stories.htm

Including :

Layne Beachley, 7 Time World Champion Surfer, Conceived in Rape



Here is the story of an Irish girl who was raped and decided not to have an abortion and adopted out the child :

KATE HOLMQUIST interviewed this young woman and I thought it would be appropriate to include her story. Her stuggles are honest. Her struggles will find a happy ending as opposed to women who struggle with their decision to abort who will not have a child to reunite with once they are healed. Life is always the best choice.

THE RAPE VICTIM WHO RELINQUISHED HER BABY

Four years ago, 27-year-old Toni was raped on a holiday abroad. Having been made pregnant by her rapist, she says she spent a lot of her pregnancy in denial about the consequences, yet at the same time never considered an abortion. “From the second I found out I was pregnant, I knew I was in no position to be a single parent and I would not have considered a termination. I always believed everything happens for a reason. I think the child has a right to live.”

Throughout the pregnancy, “I thought it would go away”, Toni says. When her son was born, “I didn’t want to hold the child”. Through the hospital social worker, she was referred to a voluntary adoption agency, Pact. The agency counseled her about her choices over “three or four” sessions and when Toni made the final decision to give the baby up for adoption, they told her she could have a choice of several families and showed her their profiles. “I wanted nothing to do with it,” she says.

While the agency and the adopting family were offering an open adoption, Toni felt she couldn’t handle it. “In the beginning, I felt I was not able to . . . the first two years were very very hard. I did not want contact.” But eventually she opted for “semi-open” adoption. Twice a year she sends a letter and the birth parents respond with letters and photographs of her three-year-old son.

This is known as “letterbox” adoption. Asking how seeing a photograph of her son makes her feel, Toni is lost for words. He’s the child of her rapist, after all. “At some point, I will want to meet the child, but not for a while,” she says. “The parents will tell when the time is right. It’s their child.”

She believes that giving her son to a couple needing one was a way in which she could turn her own trauma into something good.

Toni isn’t in a relationship now and doesn’t know if she’ll have children in the future. “I’m still young. I travel. It’s not something that fits in to my life right now,” she says.

Zombrex

editrice wrote: »

Here is the story of an Irish girl who was raped and decided not to have an abortion and adopted out the child :

The key term being of course "decided".

It is the woman's body, she can decide how it is used. That is the "choice" in pro-choice.

If she decides, for what ever reason, that she does not want to use her body to grow the foetus then that sucks for the foetus but it is still the woman's right as it is her womb.

The alternative is saying that someone else (in this case the foetus) has more right over the woman's body than she does. Telling a woman who has just been raped that would not be a recommended. The foetus has no more right to be inside the woman without her consent than a son has the right to rape his mother.

Corkfeen

Editrice, some people are capable of baring a child that is a result of rape for 9 months. If they choose to do so, fine. However it can be a painfully debilitating experience for other victims and will act as a constant reminder of what had happened.

The fact you can place the child up for adoption doesn't help the matter for many, it can further reinforce the psychological damage from the rape just by carrying it for so long. This is not a humane thing to force a person to go through who is already psychologically and physically wounded from the rape. Hypothetically discussing the future greatness of the baby is not a logical way to treat the situation. It could wreck the victim's life at the very same time so why not let them make the choice.

editrice

Zombrex wrote: »

The key term being of course "decided".

It is the woman's body, she can decide how it is used. That is the "choice" in pro-choice.

If she decides, for what ever reason, that she does not want to use her body to grow the foetus then that sucks for the foetus but it is still the woman's right as it is her womb.

The alternative is saying that someone else (in this case the foetus) has more right over the woman's body than she does. Telling a woman who has just been raped that would not be a recommended. The foetus has no more right to be inside the woman without her consent than a son has the right to rape his mother.

Indeed it is key, we can decide not to kill other human beings.

I'm afraid there's two human lives involved not one. De-humanising and stigmatising the innocent child in order to camouflage and justify their killing doesn't cut it as an excuse.

editrice

Corkfeen wrote: »

Editrice, some people are capable of baring a child that is a result of rape for 9 months. If they choose to do so, fine. However it can be a painfully debilitating experience for other victims and will act as a constant reminder of what had happened.

The fact you can place the child up for adoption doesn't help the matter for many, it can further reinforce the psychological damage from the rape just by carrying it for so long. This is not a humane thing to force a person to go through who is already psychologically and physically wounded from the rape. Hypothetically discussing the future greatness of the baby is not a logical way to treat the situation. It could wreck the victim's life at the very same time so why not let them make the choice.

Again from a secular point of view, the children of unmarried parents were stigmatised for years, yet some sections of so called 'modern' society still seems happy enough to continue the useful stigmatisation of the innocent children of a rape in order to justify the killing of them in order to promote the barbaric and medieval practice of abortion, and contraception by abortion. It's time modern society ceased accepting and promoting the killing of unborn children.

Zombrex

editrice wrote: »

I'm afraid there's two human lives and human rights involved not one.

Yes there are two humans. There is one human using another persons body without their consent.

The woman is perfectly entitled to refuse to give consent to the foetus to use her body. Her body (you don't seem to be following that point very well). Just as you are perfectly entitled to refuse to violate your bodily integrity for someone else, even if they require your body to live.

What you are effectively saying is that the foetus has more right over the woman's womb than the woman does. Which is silly, why would someone else have more right to use a person's internal organs than the person themselves?

editrice wrote: »

De-humanising and stigmatising the innocent child in order to camouflage and justify their killing doesn't cut it as an excuse.

I'm not de-humanising nor stigmatising.

Grant the foetus all the human rights you like, it doesn't change the fact that as a person the foetus does not have more right to the woman's womb than the woman herself does.

It is the woman's womb, as such she decides how it is used. The child does not have any more right to it than you or I do.

Corkfeen

editrice wrote: »

Again from a secular point of view, the children of unmarried parents were stigmatised for years, yet some sections of so called 'modern' society still seems happy enough to continue the useful stigmatisation of the innocent children of a rape in order to justify the killing of them in order to promote the barbaric and medieval practice of abortion, and contraception by abortion. It's time modern society ceased accepting and promoting the killing of unborn children.

You keep using this of secular point of view but from a secular perspective there isn't a definitive perspective(although it veers towards pro-choice). I am unwilling to place a life that isn't sentient above the mental or physical health of woman who bares the child.I also believe that as a result you can't force a person to go ahead with the pregnancy whatever their reasons are. What gives you the right to dictate the right of a woman over her own body? You didn't really address my point by the way.

Contraception by abortion is a bull**** term by the way, it is not an easy choice for the vast majority of women.

editrice

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes there are two humans. There is one human using another persons body without their consent.

The woman is perfectly entitled to refuse to give consent to the foetus to use her body. Her body (you don't seem to be following that point very well). Just as you are perfectly entitled to refuse to violate your bodily integrity for someone else, even if they require your body to live.

What you are effectively saying is that the foetus has more right over the woman's womb than the woman does. Which is silly, why would someone else have more right to use a person's internal organs than the person themselves?

I'm not de-humanising nor stigmatising.

Grant the foetus all the human rights you like, it doesn't change the fact that as a person the foetus does not have more right to the woman's womb than the woman herself does.

It is the woman's womb, as such she decides how it is used. The child does not have any more right to it than you or I do.

The problem with that spin is that again there's is actually two lives involved. Human's have an equal right to life, one does not have a greater right to life over another. You can't stigmatise one of them in order to justify their killing.

editrice

Corkfeen wrote: »

You keep using this of secular point of view but from a secular perspective there isn't a definitive perspective(although it veers towards pro-choice). I am unwilling to place a life that isn't sentient above the mental or physical health of woman who bares the child.I also believe that as a result you can't force a person to go ahead with the pregnancy whatever their reasons are. What gives you the right to dictate the right of a woman over her own body? You didn't really address my point by the way.

Contraception by abortion is a bull**** term by the way, it is not an easy choice for the vast majority of women.

Again, there's two lives involved with a right to life not one. You can't justify killing one of them, not matter how much you try to stigmatise them.

Delirium

editrice wrote: »

The problem with that spin is that again there's is actually two lives involved. Human's have an equal right to life, one does not have a greater right to life over another. You can't stigmatise one of them in order to justify their killing.

By denying women the control of their own body, you're effectively creating a situation that contradicts that statement.

editrice

koth wrote: »

By denying women the control of their own body, you're effectively creating a situation that contradicts that statement.

And what about the innocent child's body ? Again there's two bodies involved not one.

Delirium

editrice wrote: »

And what about the innocent child's body ? Again there's two bodies involved not one.

Are you changing your mind now? Are you now saying that one has a greater right to life than the other?

Fanny Cradock

koth wrote: »

Are you changing your mind now? Are you now saying that one has a greater right to life than the other?

I would think not, which is the point made by pro-life advocates.

Zombrex

editrice wrote: »

The problem with that spin

You think the fundamental right to ownership and control of ones body and organs is "spin"?

If the woman has no right of ownership over her body, why would the foetus either? Or you for that matter?

editrice wrote: »

is that again there's is actually two lives involved.

The fact that you keep repeating that would suggest you are not following the point being made.

The whole point is that there are two lives involved. The foetus is using the woman's womb without her consent.

If you are swimming and a person grabs on to you to stop themselves from drowning, are there not also two lives involved? If you have a healthy kidney and another person needs the kidney lest they will die, are there not also two lives involved?

editrice wrote: »

Human's have an equal right to life, one does not have a greater right to life over another.

Exactly. The foetus has no more rights than the mother or anyone else for that matter

The foetus does not have the right to use the mother's organs without her consent. The mother owns her own organs. Just like everyone else. You own your organs, I own my organs, the foetus owns his organs, and the mother owns her organs. The mother must consent to the foetus using the mother's womb. If she doesn't she has ever right to remove the foetus from her womb.

You seem to be consistently ignoring that point.

editrice wrote: »

You can't stigmatise one of them in order to justify their killing.

As I have already explained to you I am not stigmatising the foetus. The child and the mother have the same rights. The child cannot use the mother's organs without her consent, and the mother cannot use the child's organs without her consent.

What you are arguing is that the foetus has more right to the woman's organs than the woman does. You seem to have no argument to back that up with, and frankly I would guess you have never even thought about it. You seem to just be regurgitating anti-abortion rhetoric.

Zombrex

editrice wrote: »

And what about the innocent child's body ?

The innocent child dies because the innocent child cannot survive outside of the woman's body. Or the innocent child dies because the innocent child cannot survive the procedure to be removed from the woman's womb.

The innocent child dies in exactly the same way you die if you are having kidney failure and I refuse to give you my kidney.

The innocent child dies in exactly the same way you die if you grab on to me while I'm swimming and I smack you in the face to get you off me.

Sucks to be you if you cannot survive without my kidney or swim on your own. And sucks to be the child if it cannot survive without the mother's womb, but that isn't and never has been a justification for forcibly giving someone access to someone else's organs without that person's consent.

It has never been someone's responsibility to risk their own organs or bodily integrity to sustain the life of another. And so far you have failed to give a reason why we should make an exception for the womb of a woman.

And apparently the innocent child goes straight to paradise in heaven, so I'm not quite sure why its death is so upsetting for Christians. I suspect it is actually not.

greenpilot

I see the first part of the bill has been passed.