Keep abortion out of Ireland

MrPudding · 03-03-2012 10:48PM

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 10:56PM

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 01:51AM

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 07:47AM

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 08:48AM

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 08:50AM

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 08:56AM

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 09:06AM

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 09:09AM

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 11:11AM

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 02:57PM

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 05:51PM

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 04:51PM

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 05:32PM

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 08:48PM

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 08:38AM

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 09:43AM

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 01:16AM

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 09:26AM

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 12:45PM

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 01:35PM

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 04:36PM

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 04:53PM

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 04:55PM

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 05:23PM

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 09:46PM

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 10:13PM

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 10:25PM

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 10:27PM

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 01:11AM

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