Abortion is murder

Vangelis

robinph wrote:

Its about spaghetti and pirates.

http://www.venganza.org/

Woah, how cool!!!! :rolleyes:

:eek:

bonkey, I asked because I'm curious.

bonkey wrote:

there are so many people of so many opinions, ranging from very similar to irreconcilably different all of whom know their understanding is the correct divinely-inspired one.

I seeee! Eureka! Well, that is a good question. And one that I cannot answer for. I don't know what it is like being a Buddhist or a Muslim or even a Wiccan, but I believe that since there are so many who choose to believe - excluding those who "believe" because others do, which is not real faith and there are probably many of those - seek something in which they can find endless comfort and peace. I pray very often for God to give me peace of mind because I know that if I leave everything in his hands, I will be allright and so will those I pray for. And he gives me peace too, a feeling that I cannot explain with words. It's such a shame that I don't have a Bible at hand. It would be appropriate with some quotes now.

At least the fact that there are so many seekers, should make it clear that it is part of our nature to seek. One thing that an atheist might point out as conspicuous is the geographical division of different faiths. What if I was born in India? Might I have been a Buddhist then? Perhaps. But then I feel that that question is not relevant. But I can say that some Buddhist values are very important and all people have something to learn from their humility and open-mindedness, and their tolerance. If I had not been a Christian, I would have been a Buddhist.

All I can say about my conviction that the God that I believe in and praise, has given me peace and patience and I can see how he influences in my daily life. I have changed since I decided to really get closer to God a few months ago and the changes I have gone through have come slowly, almost unnoticeably. Before I had a rather dead faith. I was proud, judgemental and hateful towards many people. My life was revolutionised since I came in touch with an Orthodox monk whom I asked to pray that I change, become more humble, patient and enduring. And I have. Of course, still I make mistakes and I forget about God, so it is a constant project. How this has happened, I'm sure some besser-wisser of a psychologist would love to debunk as a loss of neurones in my hypothalamus or that I didn't get enough hugs when I was 5 years old. But I know what I know. More I cannot say.

de5p0i1er

I'm against it all the way.
If you don't want a child there are plenty of ppl who would love to take it of your hands.

Maccattack

de5p0i1er wrote:

I'm against it all the way.
If you don't want a child there are plenty of ppl who would love to take it of your hands.

and you think you can enforce that view on someone else?

The Corinthian

Maccattack wrote:

and you think you can enforce that view on someone else?

Of course one can. People enforce views on each other all the time - ever hear of a compulsory purchase order, for example? Society picks a moral standpoint and codifies it through law, punishing those who transgress it.

Which is all besides the point, because the real question is whether one should enforce such as view or whether such a view is right in the first place.

Vangelis

Hellooo! I have actually written something above. Waiting for a reaction.

*and here it goes:

Errrrr.. duh... NEXT!!!!!* :eek:

Shewhomustbe...

I find the whole debate regarding abortion extremely frustrating and it really makes my blood boil to listen to those against it go on about how they’re fighting for the rights of the infant. If these people put the same energy into changing the lives of children in abusive/impoverished situations they’d actually be making someone’s life better.

I don’t think the following people (male or female) should be allowed conceive,

1: Drug addicts
2: Alcoholics
3: Convicted criminals
4: People without the financial means to support
5: People under 25

yet they can and do regardless of my moral, spiritual and legal concerns. Where does my right to choice come into it? If I choose to have an abortion I have to deal or suffer the consequences, no-one else. I find the argument of women using abortion as a method of contraception absolutely ridiculous and in all honesty if someone has the time, money and inclination to consistently put their body through, what I can assume to be not only, a physically strenuous medical procedure let them because if that’s the kind of person they are I’m grateful they aren’t adding more like them to society.

I also do not think men should be allowed vote if and when another referendum occurs. Before the lynching starts think about it, how can a man know what it is like to have to consider abortion as an option. Men have always had the choice to simply walk away from the ‘problem’ never having to face the repercussions, unless of course, someone can give me an instance of where a man was interred in a Magdelene laundry house or made keep the infant because that’s the bed they made. (This is not me taking away from the rights of fathers as I don’t think the necessity of abortion would be so high if the fathers were sticking around)

bonkey

If these people put the same energy into changing the lives of children in abusive/impoverished situations they’d actually be making someone’s life better.

Yeah. Why bother fighting to save lives when you can just let them die and fight to improve the lives of others instead.
Your comment strongly suggests that you dont' share the convictions of "these people", who are opposing what they see as murder. I mean, if you were to rephrase your comment using the convictions of "these people" you'd get something like :
"Why put energy into fighting murder when you can get better results helping the less well off."
Note that I'm not saying that their perspective is correct, but surely you can see how your logic regarding where they should spend their efforts will never gel with tehir beliefs?

I also do not think men should be allowed vote if and when another referendum occurs.

I've no objection, as long as you're willing to absolve men of any and all legal, financial and moral liability for "simply walking away", as you put it. This, incidentally, will include married men. They too shall be freed of all obligations to their children.
No? Then I don't think you have the slightest grounds to suggest that men can "simply walk away" and shouldn't have a vote.

Before the lynching starts think about it, how can a man know what it is like to have to consider abortion as an option.

And how can a woman know what a man goes through when he is becomign a father?
You're judging from a position of equal ignorance and concluding that such ignorance disqualifies one from being capable of judging. Hardly the most solid of grounds to base an argument on.

(This is not me taking away from the rights of fathers )

I'm sorry? Deciding that they shouldn't have a say in the decision as to whether or not to legalise them would not take away[/i] from their rights?
How is losing the right to vote on an issue not taking away from one's rights?
jc

bonkey

Vangelis wrote:

bonkey, I asked because I'm curious.

Fair enough, but I hope you'll forgive me for nor answering. I don't see it as relevant to the discussion.

The rest of your post was interesting reading, but I think responding any further to it would take us on too much of a tangent, so again, I hope you'll forgive me for not responding here.

jc

Vangelis

That's okay, bonkey. I have nothing more to write here so I'll leave the discussion to the remaining participants/humanists.

Shewhomustbe...

bonkey wrote:

Yeah. Why bother fighting to save lives when you can just let them die and fight to improve the lives of others instead.
Your comment strongly suggests that you dont' share the convictions of "these people", who are opposing what they see as murder.

If it was as simple as saving a life I would agree with their conviction to do so but it's not. The entirety of a situation is never taken into account as proven with the X case or even with those who do not agree the mothers life is more important when its a medical issue. If you wish to view abortion as murder than you must view the murder of any sentient being in the same light, being that that is indeed the crux of this arguement, when does the embryo become sentient.

bonkey wrote:

I've no objection, as long as you're willing to absolve men of any and all legal, financial and moral liability for "simply walking away", as you put it. This, incidentally, will include married men. They too shall be freed of all obligations to their children.
No? Then I don't think you have the slightest grounds to suggest that men can "simply walk away" and shouldn't have a vote.

I don't have to, men already do. You, I'm assuming, are male and have never had to be on the receiving end of a you take care of it speech or have never had to try and get child support payments.

bonkey wrote:

And how can a woman know what a man goes through when he is becomign a father?

I can't, but it's no where near what a woman goes through.

bonkey wrote:

You're judging from a position of equal ignorance and concluding that such ignorance disqualifies one from being capable of judging. Hardly the most solid of grounds to base an argument on.

Would you care to explain this.

The Corinthian

Shewhomustbe... wrote:

I don't have to, men already do. You, I'm assuming, are male and have never had to be on the receiving end of a you take care of it speech or have never had to try and get child support payments.

Legally men cannot and that's what he was saying. If you want to suggest that men have no legal rights as fathers, then you cannot ascribe them legal responsibilities of same - you can't have your cake and eat it, I'm afraid.

I can't, but it's no where near what a woman goes through.

That argument would hold true if you suggested that fathers should have fewer rights, but that's not you're saying - what you are saying is that if two people are affected by something, only the one more affected should be given any rights.

Closing Doors

Shewhomustbe... wrote:

I can't, but it's no where near what a woman goes through.

Please tell me you see the contradiction in that.

Shewhomustbe...

Shewhomustbe... wrote:

I also do not think men should be allowed vote if and when another referendum occurs. Before the lynching starts think about it, how can a man know what it is like to have to consider abortion as an option. Men have always had the choice to simply walk away from the ‘problem’ never having to face the repercussions, unless of course, someone can give me an instance of where a man was interred in a Magdelene laundry house or made keep the infant because that’s the bed they made. (This is not me taking away from the rights of fathers as I don’t think the necessity of abortion would be so high if the fathers were sticking around)

bonkey wrote:

I've no objection, as long as you're willing to absolve men of any and all legal, financial and moral liability for "simply walking away", as you put it. This, incidentally, will include married men. They too shall be freed of all obligations to their children.
No? Then I don't think you have the slightest grounds to suggest that men can "simply walk away" and shouldn't have a vote.

Shewhomustbe... wrote:

I don't have to, men already do. You, I'm assuming, are male and have never had to be on the receiving end of a you take care of it speech or have never had to try and get child support payments.

The Corinthian wrote:

Legally men cannot and that's what he was saying. If you want to suggest that men have no legal rights as fathers, then you cannot ascribe them legal responsibilities of same - you can't have your cake and eat it, I'm afraid.

I'm having difficulty following where this is going, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough in my original post.
I have a problem with a man voting to determine what I can and cannot do with or to my body. This is a major contributing factor as to why I want abortion legalised. CHOICE.
You, bonkey, chose to react to what I said in a flippant manner. Men can CHOOSE to just walk away thereby absolving themselves of legal, financial and moral liability regardless of whether or not they vote. I wonder if the debate was concerning male preganancy would you think it strange to have only men vote.
I can understand your concern but even now women can have an abortion without having to legally inform the father so my suggestion does not take away from the legal rights of men.

Rev Hellfire

Shewhomustbe... wrote:

I have a problem with a man voting to determine what I can and cannot do with or to my body. This is a major contributing factor as to why I want abortion legalised. CHOICE.

This might be the case if it was something like a woman’s right to clip her toenails, but it isn’t.
It all comes down to whether you assume the foetus is a person. At present it would seem that those who believe it is combined with those haven’t decided but err to the side of caution outweigh those who deem it not to be. Maybe in a future referendum society will have changed its mind but that is not the case at this point.

But one further additional point is that (and excluding rape and accidental pregnancies) when a couple decide to have a child it is a decision taken by both parties, both have a equal investment in the child, 9 months is quite a small percentage of the time required to raise a child.

Men can CHOOSE to just walk away thereby absolving themselves of legal, financial and moral liability regardless of whether or not they vote.

Neither parent can legally walk away from their responsibilities. That is not to say that some men do indeed walk away and attempt to escape their responsibilities; but additionally so do some women.

The Corinthian

Shewhomustbe... wrote:

Men can CHOOSE to just walk away thereby absolving themselves of legal, financial and moral liability regardless of whether or not they vote.

That is factually incorrect. Men cannot walk away absolving themselves of legal or financial liability. If they do they can and often are pursued legally and financially.

bonkey

maybe I didn't make myself clear enough in my original post.

Oh, I think you did. You want choice, and you see men as the reason you don't have it, so you argue that they should have no say.

Unfortunately, your reasons as to why they should have no say don't quite seem to hold together.

I have a problem with a man voting to determine what I can and cannot do with or to my body.

I'd also be fairly confident that were men to have no vote on the issue, and the result was still that abortion was not legal in Ireland, then you'd pick Catholicism, or some other group to argue should be silenced, until eventually you were left with a group which in the majority wanted the same result as you.

In other words, I suggest you have a problem with society determining what you can and cannot do with your body (as you see it), and not just men.

You, bonkey, chose to react to what I said in a flippant manner.

I was perfectly serious. You just chose to interpret it as flippancy, presumably because you disagree with me.

Men can CHOOSE to just walk away thereby absolving themselves of legal, financial and moral liability

You apparently don't undetrstand (or are choosing to misrepresent) the meaning of the words legal liability if you believe anyone can choose to "just walk away" from it.

They can do this, yes...except its illegal. Thats why its called legal liability in the first place.

Now, if people can "just choose" to do illegal acts, then what exactly is your issue with abortion beign illegal? You can still just choose to have it.
Or are you suggesting that men can ignore the law with impunity while women are bound by it?

And no, I'm not being flippant this time either.

You, I'm assuming, are male and have never had to be on the receiving end of a you take care of it speech or have never had to try and get child support payments.

You can assume whatever you like about me. It has no bearing on reality, the reasoning behind my argument, my critique of yours, nor anything else relevant to this discussion that I can see.

Actually, thats not true. There is relevancy, in that it shows that you have a tendancy to attack positions which disagree with yours on grounds of "clearly cannot / does not understand". Unfortunately, your only offered reasoning as to why this holds appears to be that the position is different to yours.

In other words, you're arguing "you disagree with me, ergo you don't understand the issues." as some sort of reason why your argument is correct. Thats nothing but circular reasoning.

Would you care to explain this.

Sure. You suggest the following :

Men cannot and do not know what women go through.
Women cannot and do not know what men go through.

From this you conclude:

Men, because they cannot understand the woman's position, should not presume to tell a woman what to do.
Women, because they cannot understand the man's position, should tell him he can't have a say in case he might disagree with the woman.

Hardly what you'd call balanced reasoning, is it?

jc

Shewhomustbe...

Bonkey, I think you are very amusing, I suggest maybe men shouldn't vote on a (primarily) female matter and you conclude I'll start an assault on anyone who disagrees with me, is this not in fact what you are doing?

You may disagree with abortion,maybe I do too, but it's completely irrelevant to the fact that it is being chosen by Irish women as a method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. I find it so embarrassing that we as a nation still think it's okay to scoot the problem under the carpet, or over to the UK.

I highly doubt abortion will become rampant should it become legal but it being available here would surely take the pressure off of having to make a quick decision and give the time to make a properly informed one and if chosen protect the woman medically and financially.
I really don't understand how you think it being illegal means it won't happen, surely you've heard of the films Vera Drake and If these walls could talk.

bonkey

Shewhomustbe... wrote:

Bonkey, I think you are very amusing,

Why thank you

I suggest maybe men shouldn't vote on a (primarily) female matter and you conclude I'll start an assault on anyone who disagrees with me, is this not in fact what you are doing?

No, its not what I'm doing. I'm not suggesting that your stance, reasoning, or anything else should prevent you from having a say in the debate, nor a vote on the issue if and when that situation next arises.

Its the distinction between disagreement and deciding that those who disagree in sufficient numbers should be removed from having a say because they could sway a vote.

I have as much a right to disagree with you as you have with me. I am not however suggesting that your voice should carry no weight in a vote lest you - and those like you - lead to a decision I don't agree with.

Would you have a problem with men having a vote if the overwhelming majority of them agreed with your stance? I somehow doubt it, which is why I suggested that were men removed, and you still didn't get your way, you'd be looking for other groups who should be denied a voice. Its idle speculation, of course. I can offer no proof whatsoever that my impression is in any way accurate.

The suggestion that it is a female matter - primarily or otherwise - is something I believe to be patently false, and one that I find is generally only ever advocated by women who support - to one extent or another - the notion of a right to abortion, and who see men as the largest threat/obstacle to obtaining/keeping that right.

I really don't understand how you think it being illegal means it won't happen,

Where have I suggested that?

Considering that those who oppose abortion almost exclusively do so on the grounds that they see it as a form or murder (or as possibly a form of murder and they want to be safe), why should they legalise it just because illegality doesn't prevent it? Would you suggest to them that we should legalise other forms of murder/death where illegality doesn't prevent it?

Society doesn't have an issue with illegalising such activities where the overwhelming majority of society don't have any disagreement that such forms of murder are wrong. Therefore there is no dissonance when they are made illegal. However, when it comes to abortion, there's clearly no such agreement, and thus there is dissonance no matter what the decision is.

The solution to this dissonance - if solution there be - is not to disenfranchise one large group in order to artificially create a less balanced result.

When you look at it, opponents of abortion are effectively told that they should either not oppose it because others don't see it as murder, or that if they don't want to kill themselves, they shouldn't prevent others from doing so.

Or, as you've suggested, a large section are effectively told that they shouldn't have a say...because even if they see it as murder, its none of their business.

I wonder...if you and your partner agreed to have a child, and then you (as I assuming you're female) decide to have an abortion....your stance would suggest that your husband, willing partner, and person with whom you've already agreed to have this child should have no say purely because of his gender.

Am I reading this correctly, or will you suggest that its fine for men to have a say in a relationship but not at a societal level? Should you do so, I can already see some great parallels with how men used to insist women interact at a societal level - staying out of things that "were men's business". I'm guessing that you wouldn't agree they're "men's business" and would be offended by the suggestion that because men have decided its none of women's business, women shouldn't have a say.

The only people who can decide men shouldn't have a say is men. Anything else is disenfranchisement.

jc

AARRRGH

AndyWarhol wrote:

These days abortion is treated in such a trivial manner that it is used as a form of contraception. Innocent lives are being taken all over the world in the name of convenience.

I agree. I know a lot of girls who've had abortions (most of these girls are foreign.) They see it as no big deal. The idea that it is a future life being extinguished is of no consequence to them.

I find it very sad.

I understand that these girls feel their life might be "ruined" if they keep the child, but really, I don't think you should be having sex if you are not responsible enough to deal with the consequences.

When I start growing a plant and it is a few inches tall, I don't pretend it's not a plant... The human blob is still a human...