Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

So how should women who have abortions be dealt with?

With love and compassion, just like anybody else.

Look, we've been over this ground before. My concern is not to criminalise or punish anyone. We have a situation where abortion, while mostly illegal in Ireland, has become culturally acceptable in many circumstances.

From a human rights standpoint, my desire is to see the weakest and most oppressed protected. The current law, while not perfect in its interpretation, does that to some measure. The priority should be to protect life, not to exact retribution.

Therefore I support the retention of the 8th Amendment. I support the right of each child, irrespective of gender, race or disability, to be born.

I would also hope that, as a nation, we can celebrate this human rights approach more, so that we develop more of a culture of life. That would include much better support for mothers, much more investment in services to the disabled, more proactive measures to reduce the incidence of rape, better sex education and easier access to contraception, and a greater commitment to tackle poverty.

Human rights issues, particularly when they are reinforced by culture, demand a multi-faceted approach. Shouting for people to be punished rarely solves anything. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit with your perception of how pro-life people should think - but surely you agree we should interact with reality rather than stereotypes and strawmen?

lazygal

There's nothing compassionate about forcing all women to continue all pregnancies against their wishes. In myriad circumstances abortion would be my preference. You don't want me to have that choice, but instead refer to fuzzy things like support.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

With love and compassion, just like anybody else.

So, love and compassion for all child murderers? Does that mean they just say sorry and off they go? Or should they be punished all the same?

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

So, love and compassion for all child murderers? Does that mean they just say sorry and off they go? Or should they be punished all the same?

I'm sorry if you see women who have had abortions as child murderers.

I'm even more sorry if you see the need to falsely portray others as holding that view.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm sorry if you see women who have had abortions as child murderers.

I'm even more sorry if you see the need to falsely portray others as holding that view.

I'm not the one who says abortion needs to be banned though. So why exactly would you prevent women from having control over their reproductive systems if you don't think abortion is the same as murder? Just out of malice? Or what?

Genuine question. I can't understand this claim that it's ok to force women to gestate against their will but it's not murder when the woman goes ahead and aborts anyway. Poor woman let's treat her with compassion. Those are completely contradictory and incoherent attitudes afaict. Maybe you can explain how one person can believe both at the same time?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm sorry if you see women who have had abortions as child murderers.

I'm even more sorry if you see the need to falsely portray others as holding that view.

How do you view women who kill their unborn children?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

How do you view women who kill their unborn children?

Given that every situation is different it would be foolish to view them all in the same way.

The idea that not all abortions are the same is a relatively straightforward concept. I'm not quite sure why you seem to have so much difficulty understanding it.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Given that every situation is different it would be foolish to view them all in the same way.

The idea that not all abortions are the same is a relatively straightforward concept. I'm not quite sure why you seem to have so much difficulty understanding it.

So how you view a woman who's killed an unborn child depends on her situation?
Suppose I had an abortion because of a FFA diagnosis, how would you view me? If I imported pills illegally because I've no money to travel how would you view me?

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not the one who says abortion needs to be banned though. So why exactly would you prevent women from having control over their reproductive systems if you don't think abortion is the same as murder? Just out of malice? Or what?

Genuine question. I can't understand this claim that it's ok to force women to gestate against their will but it's not murder when the woman goes ahead and aborts anyway. Poor woman let's treat her with compassion. Those are completely contradictory and incoherent attitudes afaict. Maybe you can explain how one person can believe both at the same time?

It's almost as if a foetus isn't really the same as a baby, isn't it?

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not the one who says abortion needs to be banned though. So why exactly would you prevent women from having control over their reproductive systems if you don't think abortion is the same as murder? Just out of malice? Or what?

I'm very happy for women to have control of their reproductive systems as in contraception. But I think that is a very convoluted way of describing the killing of the unborn. But hey, the mangling of language on this issue is so complete that it's apparently an awful thing to refer to someone who carries out abortions as an abortionist.

I'm opposed to abortion because, while I don't think women who have abortions are murderers, I do believe unborn children should have a right to life.

I'm also opposed to capital punishment because, while I don't think legally appointed executioners are murderers, I do think convicted criminals have a right to life.

I'm opposed to warfare because, while I don't think soldiers who shoot enemies in wars are murderers, I do think that killing other people is wrong

Genuine question. I can't understand this claim that it's ok to force women to gestate against their will but it's not murder when the woman goes ahead and aborts anyway. Poor woman let's treat her with compassion. Those are completely contradictory and incoherent attitudes afaict. Maybe you can explain how one person can believe both at the same time?

Not all killing is murder. Particularly where people have been culturally conditioned to see some forms of killing as acceptable and even patriotic or noble.

Nothing contradictory or incoherent about it. It's simply a thoughtful approach of ethics and logic rather than concentrating on trying to make those who disagree with you appear in the worst possible light.

lazygal

So what do you class killing the unborn as Nick? And why should there be no sanctions when women kill the unborn?

Abortionists again? Why are women who take abortion pills not abortionists?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

So what do you class killing the unborn as Nick? And why should there be no sanctions when women kill the unborn?

As I've already explained to you on a number of occasions, I view the killing of the unborn as a human rights violation.

And the priority should not be on blaming someone, but rather on ending the human rights violations. Simply applying legal sanctions is often not the best way to effect genuine and lasting cultural change.

Abortionists again? Why are women who take abortion pills not abortionists

Well, I'm amused that straightforward English language is being manipulated quite so blatantly. What is the preferred term? 'Reproductive Health Professionals' perhaps?

Why are women who take abortion pills not abortionists? Probably for the same reason that pulling my tooth out with a pair of pliers doesn't make me a dentist.

lazygal

I'm amused that all these human rights violations can go unpunished. As I said, it's almost as if you don't really believe me taking abortion pills is the same as me killing my born children.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

I'm amused that all these human rights violations can go unpunished.

I also don't believe that those who act as State executioners in the US or China should be punished. I would be much more concerned to see the executions halted.

Is that amusing?

As I said, it's almost as if you don't really believe me taking abortion pills is the same as me killing my born children.

You can delete the 'almost' if you want. I've never said the two scenarios are the same.

In your eagerness to portray those who hold a different viewpoint negatively, you seem to be neglecting one important thing - actually listening to what they are saying.

lazygal

Nick I know exactly what you're saying. You want me to stay pregnant regardless of my wishes or the risks to my health. You've presented no reasonable basis for this view whatsoever. Instead you've repeatedly accused posters of deliberately misreading your view that compulsory gestation should be implemented.
If someone wants to remove my rights during pregnancy I'd like to know why and how.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Nick I know exactly what you're saying. You want me to stay pregnant regardless of my wishes or the risks to my health. You've presented no reasonable basis for this view whatsoever. Instead you've repeatedly accused posters of deliberately misreading your view that compulsory gestation should be implemented.
If someone wants to remove my rights during pregnancy I'd like to know why and how.

I don't want you to stay pregnant. If you don't want a child then I'd much prefer you didn't get pregnant.

But I don't think you should have a right to kill your unborn child. And I don't believe the State should facilitate you in such an act.

The basis for my view is one of human rights. I'm sorry that you don't see human rights as a reasonable basis for a viewpoint. This concept, signed up to by all civilised nations (and some rather uncivilised ones too) is that human beings have certain inalienable rights.

Quite simply. The right to life is a recognised human right. The 'right' to have an abortion is not a recognised human right.

Your wish to have an abortion (which is not a human right) should not trump the child's right to life.

You are certainly entitled to disagree with me over this, but it's a shame such disagreement apparently cannot be more civil.

smacl

Rocco Warm Clock wrote: »

Nick, what do you really expect? After all, this is the "christianity" forum.;)

The Spanish inquisition, maybe?

Cabaal

smacl wrote: »

The Spanish inquisition, maybe?

Don't be silly, nobody expects that...

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

I also don't believe that those who act as State executioners in the US or China should be punished. I would be much more concerned to see the executions halted.

They aren't breaking the law though.

I'm pretty sure I'd they took matters into their own hands and killed a death row prisoner just because they would be treated differently.

Which kinda makes me wonder why women who have abortions aren't?

We kill our babies and we don't have any remorse or regrets and yet you still believe we shouldn't be jailed? You can see why people are confused.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

The basis for my view is one of human rights. I'm sorry that you don't see human rights as a reasonable basis for a viewpoint. This concept, signed up to by all civilised nations (and some rather uncivilised ones too) is that human beings have certain inalienable rights.

And yet your position is at loggerheads with leading human-rights organisations such as Amnesty International, and the UN Human Rights Committee. In fact, anyone other than a strong Christian would consider the pro-life stance to be in direct violation of human rights. For this reason, most civilised countries allow for abortion on demand within the first ten weeks of pregnancy. What you consider to be human rights many others would consider a very cruel imposition of Christian dogma on those that do not share their beliefs.

Nick Park

eviltwin wrote: »

They aren't breaking the law though.

I'm pretty sure I'd they took matters into their own hands and killed a death row prisoner just because they would be treated differently.

Which kinda makes me wonder why women who have abortions aren't?

We kill our babies and we don't have any remorse or regrets and yet you still believe we shouldn't be jailed? You can see why people are confused.

I don't think it's a case of anyone being confused. More a case of people being frustrated because they would love to portray pro-lifers as vindictive and so get upset when we don't conform to their straw men/stereotypes.

I am much more concerned about seeing Human Rights abuses stopped than I am about seeing people punished. Sorry if you don't like that.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

And yet your position is at loggerheads with leading human-rights organisations such as Amnesty International, and the UN court of human rights. In fact, anyone other than a strong Christian would consider the pro-life stance to be in direct violation of human rights. For this reason, most civilised countries allow for abortion on demand within the first ten weeks of pregnancy. What you consider to be human rights many others would consider a very cruel imposition of Christian dogma on those that do not share their beliefs.

Really?

Could you please quote which major Human Rights treaty states abortion to be a Human Right?

Also, please cite which judgement by the UN Court of Human Rights is at loggerheads with my position?

As for Amnesty International, they certainly have done brilliant Human Rights work over the years. But that doesn't give them the right to redefine Human Rights to suit their political agenda.

Pro Hoc Vice

Nick Park wrote: »

Really?

Could you please quote which major Human Rights treaty states abortion to be a Human Right?

Also, please cite which judgement by the UN Court of Human Rights is at loggerheads with my position?

As for Amnesty International, they certainly have done brilliant Human Rights work over the years. But that doesn't give them the right to redefine Human Rights to suit their political agenda.

UN Court of Human Rights?

Nick Park

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

UN Court of Human Rights?

Ask smacl. Apparently I'm at loggerheads with such a body

Pro Hoc Vice

Nick Park wrote: »

Ask smacl. Apparently I'm at loggerheads with such a body

A bit difficult as I have never heard of it, is it some secret court that you need a hand shake to get in?

Nick Park

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A bit difficult as I have never heard of it, is it some secret court that you need a hand shake to get in?

I googled it, but the only reference I can find to it is, rather strangely, in a blog by the Dutch right wing politician Geert Wilders where he claimed he was at the centre of a case against Netherlands that some Moroccan chaps had taken to the Court. So perhaps Mr Wilders and smacl are the only people who know the handshake (always assuming, of course, that they are not the same person)?

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think it's a case of anyone being confused. More a case of people being frustrated because they would love to portray pro-lifers as vindictive and so get upset when we don't conform to their straw men/stereotypes.

I am much more concerned about seeing Human Rights abuses stopped than I am about seeing people punished. Sorry if you don't like that.

It's not a stereotype. Most people want to see killers brought to justice. If someone kills a baby I think they should face a sanction, prison or a secure unit of they have mental illness. If the child in the womb has equal value to those outside then why are they not equally deserving of justice? If you believe a woman who had an abortion should be treated differently to the one who kills a baby then clearly you don't see the unborn as being as valid. That's not very different to how pro choice people feel.

Cabaal

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm very happy for women to have control of their reproductive systems as in contraception.

You might be, but lets face it the same people that lobbied hard to get the 8th included didn't want men or women to use contraception and if they had their way it would have remained that way.

Cabaal

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think it's a case of anyone being confused. More a case of people being frustrated because they would love to portray pro-lifers as vindictive and so get upset when we don't conform to their straw men/stereotypes.

The problem here is you claim the fetus is equal in life to a born baby,
But clearly it is not, if I colluded with somebody to murder a born baby I would be tried and punished and so would the other person.

But in the world of abortions if a women organises for a doctor to perform an abortion you only wish to have the doctor punished, clearly that fetus is not equal to a baby if thats how you punish the people involved in its "murder".

Very clearly the fetus is not equal in your eyes,

I am much more concerned about seeing Human Rights abuses stopped than I am about seeing people punished. Sorry if you don't like that.

Indeed and so are we, thats why we'd rather that an amendment that was effectively created by a religious lobby should not dictate what people that don't follow that religion should or should not do with their body's.

Ireland's current setup violates women's human rights, the UN has previously confirmed this.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Really?

Could you please quote which major Human Rights treaty states abortion to be a Human Right?

Also, please cite which judgement by the UN Court of Human Rights is at loggerheads with my position?

From Amnesty International; IRELAND’S BAN ON ABORTION VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS – GROUND-BREAKING UN RULING

As for Amnesty International, they certainly have done brilliant Human Rights work over the years. But that doesn't give them the right to redefine Human Rights to suit their political agenda.

And yet you seem happy enough to redefine human rights to suit a pro-life agenda in such a way that it is contrary to the position held by most other human rights activists? Given the last HSE study on crisis pregnancy shows that 89% of those surveyed state they are in favour of allowing the choice of abortion where the woman's health is at serious risk, what you call human rights I would call theocratic interference.