Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Abortion debate thread

1…2526283031…59

Comments

  • #812
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    As you've been told, time and time again, many here don't consider the early embryo/fetus to be a 'life' with significant value. I myself have stated that I view an early embryo/fetus as having as much of a right to life as a tree.
    What scientific or moral reason do you have for your belief that an unborn child is equivalent to a tree?
    Using a scientific and logical fiction (that an unborn child is the same as a tree), doesn't alter the fact that a fiction is being used ... and that there is no justifiable reason for killing it.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    So not really anything to do with what I believe happens after death.
    If, as an Atheist, you believe that this is the only life that any of us have ... why would you support the deliberate shortening of this life at any stage from conception to natural death ?

    ... an Atheist believes that we are going to be dead for a very long time i.e. forever ... so why hasten such an eventuality??


  • #813
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 27,954 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I did read his post.

    Someone should be able to give a serious answer.
    Someone probably will, if you reframe it as a serious question.


  • #814
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by Tim Robbins
    I did read his post.

    Someone should be able to give a serious answer.

    Peregrinus
    Someone probably will, if you reframe it as a serious question.
    His question does deserve an answer.

    ... and I have given Tim a serious answer here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82336851&postcount=806


  • #815
    martinnew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭martinnew


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If Christians believe that

    1. Heaven is a better place than Earth
    2. You - should - go Heaven when you die.
    3. A foetus has a soul and is a life.

    We can say Ergo

    1. The foetus goes to heaven and doesn't have to waste time on Earth.

    What's the big deal then?

    Surely a more direct approach to Heaven should be welcomed.


    The BIG deal is that as Christians (and as Muslim/Jews) God has commanded us to not kill.

    Going to an abortion clinic and saying I don't want to have the Child because, its not the right time, because its not a Boy, because its not perfect, because it has downs syndrome, because it does not fit with my holiday plans or my career. Targeting your child for destruction, is wrong.

    When you intentionally decide to end your child's life, you commit murder.


  • #816
    Icepick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    J C wrote: »
    We'll have to agree to differ on that ... unborn children are objectively the same as born children ... but only a little younger.

    He is loving, merciful and just ... we are the sinful malevolent ones ... who project our own inadequacies onto a perfect God.
    Please provide evidence for both claims.


  • Advertisement
  • #817
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by Icepick
    That's OK, but foetus is not a person, especially if it has no chance to develop normally.

    Originally Posted by J C
    We'll have to agree to differ on that ... unborn children are objectively the same as born children ... but only a little younger.

    Icepick
    Please provide evidence for both claims.
    Could I point out that when somebody is justifying the killing of unborn children on the basis that they are not persons ... the onus falls on them to justify such a position ... so could I ask you for evidence that an unborn child isn't a Human Being.
    In any event, it is a fact that an unborn child is substantively the same as a born Human ... and the only differences are that they are younger and more vulnerable ... both features which normally increases the legal protection afforded such persons.
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by Icepick
    As for your description of god, he sounds like a malevolent bully.

    Originally Posted by J C
    He is loving, merciful and just ... we are the sinful malevolent ones ... who project our own inadequacies onto a perfect God.
    The fact that we are all sinners is obvious ... everyone falls short of perfection ... and many of us fall very far short indeed.
    The fact that God is loving, merciful and just is also obvious ... otherwise He wouldn't have Created us with the capacity to love Him and each other ... and He wouldn't have bothered dying in atonement for our sins, so that He can legitimately extend His mercy to Save us, while still acting justly, by paying the required punishment for our sins.


  • #818
    Icepick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    That's preaching, not evidence.


  • #819
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Icepick wrote: »
    That's preaching, not evidence.
    The first answer concerns the objective scientifically verifiable evidence that unborn children are fully Human ..and the second answer concerns your question on God and sin ... which are in the faith realm ... please don't conflate the two!!

    I also note that you haven't provided any evidence to support your invalid contention that unborn children aren't fully Human ... with all of the rights that this implies.

    ... and below we have evidence that not even one abortion was carried out on an Irish woman in Britain over the past 20 years to save the life of the mother.

    ... this would indicate that where there is a real and substantive threat to the life of the mother these situations are already dealt with by current medical practice in Ireland.

    ... so what exactly is the problem ... that needs to be addressed in Ireland in relation to abortion?

    Quote:-
    "Not one Irish woman has had an abortion in the UK in order to save her life since 1992, new research from the Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare (CEMH) has shown.

    A response to a freedom of information request by the Committee to the British Department of Health shows that, between 1992 and 2010, no abortions were carried out on Irish women under section F of the UK Abortion Act, which requires records to be kept of abortions that were carried out to “save the life of the mother”.

    http://www.symposiummaternalhealth.com/no-abortions-carried-out-on-irish-women-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother-since-1992-uk-figures-reveal/
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0910/1224323797477.html


  • #820
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    ... so what exactly is the problem ... that needs to be addressed in Ireland in relation to abortion?

    I will answer your question by adding the other fact that you conveniently left out of your statement below.
    J C wrote: »
    ... we have evidence that not even one abortion was carried out on an Irish woman in Britain over the past 20 years to save the life of the mother.
    ...............but 4,500 Irish women every year go there to have one for their own valid reasons

    That is the problem that needs to be addressed in relation to abortion - this "saving the life of the mother" business is all that can be done in relation to abortion within the confines of the 8th amendment, but the actual problem is that we ship out our problems to another country.


  • #821
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Quote:-
    "Not one Irish woman has had an abortion in the UK in order to save her life since 1992, new research from the Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare (CEMH) has shown.

    A response to a freedom of information request by the Committee to the British Department of Health shows that, between 1992 and 2010, no abortions were carried out on Irish women under section F of the UK Abortion Act, which requires records to be kept of abortions that were carried out to “save the life of the mother”.

    Is this really surprising? If a woman’s life was at risk due to pregnancy and needed an abortion then it is unlikely she would be fit to travel. No?

    We already know, or are told, that women receive treatment to save their lives that cause them to be not pregnant anymore. We are told this happens in Irish hospitals. Of course, for some reason it is not called abortion, and those that are pro-life resort to using legal definitions (which is interesting as they don’t seem to want to use legal definitions for other words, murder for example) to hide the fact that it is an abortion.

    So, if we consider that a woman that needs an abortion to save her life is unlikely to be able to travel then your evidence that no Irish women are on record as having an abortion in the UK to save their life does not seem unreasonable.

    If we then consider that, where a treatment is given to a woman in Ireland which is, in effect an abortion, but is given with the primary intention of saving the woman’s life rather than ending the pregnancy, and then the HSE neither class it as an abortion nor record it as anything other than a miscarriage, then it is quite easy to see why it would appear that no woman in Ireland gets and abortion to save their life and also why that conclusion is likely to be wrong.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #822
    martinnew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭martinnew


    MrPudding wrote: »
    We already know, or are told, that women receive treatment to save their lives that cause them to be not pregnant anymore. We are told this happens in Irish hospitals. Of course, for some reason it is not called abortion, and those that are pro-life resort to using legal definitions (which is interesting as they don’t seem to want to use legal definitions for other words, murder for example) to hide the fact that it is an abortion.MrP

    Pro-life is NOT and NEVER was against terminating a pregnancy when this is the ONLY option available to save the life of the Mother. For example when a woman arrives with an Ectopic pregnancy, she is not told to go to the UK. She is cared for in Ireland and the pregnancy is terminated. This is called an abortion in the UK. In Ireland its called doing the morally right thing of caring for the mother and her child.

    What pro-life totally and completely against is targeting the Child for termination when there is no substantial risk to the mothers life. (for example downs syndrome)


  • #823
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    There is a great resource from Biola University called the Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics Course. The primary purpose of the course is to provide answers to some of the claims made by abortion advocates. In this regard is intended for a particular audience. However, I think that anyone interested in the debate would find this a fascinating watch/ listen.

    I used one of the many Youtube converters available to convert the various lectures into mp3 format.


  • #824
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    I will answer your question by adding the other fact that you conveniently left out of your statement below.

    ...............but 4,500 Irish women every year go there to have one for their own valid reasons

    That is the problem that needs to be addressed in relation to abortion - this "saving the life of the mother" business is all that can be done in relation to abortion within the confines of the 8th amendment, but the actual problem is that we ship out our problems to another country.
    ... so it's abortion on demand that is the real objective of the pro-abortion lobby in Ireland ... and all this stuff about pregnant womens lives being at risk in Ireland is not an issue at all.
    The pro-abortion lobby needs to stop creating groundless fears for pregnant women that they will not be properly looked after, if they are in a life-threatening situation ... and 'bad mouthing' Ireland's reputation as one of the safest countries in the world to have a baby in.

    Women choose of their own free will to travel to other juristictions to avail of abortion ... just like people choose to travel to Switzerland for euthanasia ... and Las Vegas for gambling casinos ... but this isn't any reason to make these services legal in Ireland.

    People do many things that are illegal in one juristiction, in another juristiction, where they are legal.
    Equally, most people who break laws do so for their own reasons ... whether they're valid reasons or not is another question entirely.

    I also note that none of the pro-abortion advocates have provided any evidence that unborn children are anything else but tiny vulnerable Human Beings.

    liveaction_tree.jpg


  • #825
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    J C wrote: »
    ... so it's abortion on demand that is the real objective of the pro-abortion lobby in Ireland ... and all this stuff about pregnant womens lives being at risk in Ireland is not an issue at all.

    It's always been my objective and I haven't told you any different all along. Check it out. It's not my only objective though - it's my end objective. See below for details on the 1st objective.
    The pro-abortion lobby needs to stop creating groundless fears for pregnant women that they will not be properly looked after, if they are in a life-threatening situation ... and 'bad mouthing' Ireland's reputation as one of the safest countries in the world to have a baby in.

    No, you are wrong. The primary objective of our campaign (IMO) is to drive the government to put the laws we voted on in writing to provide actual guidelines for Irish medical practitioners to follow when they are faced with a "threat to life of the mother". Like in the case where a woman is miscarrying but the fetus still has a heartbeat.

    And we're around 15th in the (first) world at the last count, not including the statistics that we'll have to provide soon based on the same criteria as the rest of Europe. We don't collect these statistics on the same basis as the rest of Europe at present.
    Women choose of their own free will to travel to other juristictions to avail of abortion ... just like people choose to travel to Switzerland for euthanasia ... and Las Vegas for gambling casinos ... but this isn't any reason to make these services legal in Ireland.

    People do many things that are illegal in one juristiction, in another juristiction, where they are legal.
    Equally, most people who break laws do so for their own reasons ... whether they're valid reasons or not is another question entirely.

    It is not free will if they have no choice but to travel to obtain an abortion for what they consider to be valid reasons. You have clearly never been in the confidence of someone who had very valid reasons NOT to be pregnant at that time.

    The reason we want abortion available here is because 4,500+ women per year decide that they need to abort a pregnancy. You can continue to ignore these women as long as you like - unfortunately, the reasons women need abortions never go away. (I hope they will one day - but probably not in my lifetime anyway)
    I also note that none of the pro-abortion advocates have provided any evidence that unborn children are anything else but tiny vulnerable Human Beings.

    What's so special about human beings again?
    liveaction_tree.jpg

    Are you sure that's not one of the images of fetuses that Liveaction/Youth Defence et al have pilfered from stock photos? I remember recently they were using a pretty picture of a ickle cutsey fetus in their latest poster campaign, and were unaware that had been taken originally by a Norwegian (I think norwegian - I can look it up if ya want) photographer who actually used real aborted fetuses to produce faked up photos of a fetus in the womb. Hmmm, the blue background looks suspicious............


  • #826
    martinnew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭martinnew


    Obliq wrote: »
    No, you are wrong. The primary objective of our campaign (IMO) is to drive the government to put the laws we voted on in writing to provide actual guidelines for Irish medical practitioners to follow when they are faced with a "threat to life of the mother". Like in the case where a woman is miscarrying but the fetus still has a heartbeat..

    Most mothers who arrive to a Hospital miscarrying don't ask for an abortion, infact if they thought there was a chance to the baby surviving they would do all the could to help the child.

    If a woman arrives to a hospital miscarrying their baby, the best thing is to let nature take its course. Thousands of women miscarry every year, performing a medical intervention has its risks.

    If there is a real danger to the woman's life, of course a medical termination should take place, nobody is disputing this.


  • #827
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    It's always been my objective and I haven't told you any different all along. Check it out. It's not my only objective though - it's my end objective. See below for details on the 1st objective.
    I've no doubt that abortion on demand is the real objective behind all of this agitating on abortion ... and I'm glad that you have confirmed that.
    ... so lets hear no more of this scaremongering about pregnant womens' lives being 'on the line' in Ireland ... when the only lives 'on the line' are unborn children.
    Obliq wrote: »
    No, you are wrong. The primary objective of our campaign (IMO) is to drive the government to put the laws we voted on in writing to provide actual guidelines for Irish medical practitioners to follow when they are faced with a "threat to life of the mother". Like in the case where a woman is miscarrying but the fetus still has a heartbeat.
    I've no problem with legal clarification ... as long as it's not legal licence to kill where there is no substantive threat to the life of the mother.
    Obliq wrote: »
    And we're around 15th in the (first) world at the last count, not including the statistics that we'll have to provide soon based on the same criteria as the rest of Europe. We don't collect these statistics on the same basis as the rest of Europe at present.
    The fact remains that Ireland is one of the safest countries to have a baby in ... and providing abortion services won't have any effect on maternal deaths ... but it will obviously greatly increase child deaths.


    Obliq wrote: »
    It is not free will if they have no choice but to travel to obtain an abortion for what they consider to be valid reasons. You have clearly never been in the confidence of someone who had very valid reasons NOT to be pregnant at that time.
    I have met people who regretted many things ... including having an abortion ... but, in any event, this doesn't give them the moral right to go killing innocent people to solve their mistakes.

    Obliq wrote: »
    The reason we want abortion available here is because 4,500+ women per year decide that they need to abort a pregnancy. You can continue to ignore these women as long as you like - unfortunately, the reasons women need abortions never go away. (I hope they will one day - but probably not in my lifetime anyway)
    Killing other people is never an answer. Not getting pregnant in the first place would help ... and with the wide availability of effective contraception, there are much less excuses than in the past for unwanted pregnancy. Men also need to take more responsibility for the pregnancies they create ... and where they don't take responsibility, the law should ensure that they do.
    Women who become pregnant, need to be supported to have their children ... and if they don't want the child when it's born ... it can be adopted ... which is much better than killing it.
    Obliq wrote: »
    What's so special about human beings again?
    If you have to ask that question you really do have a problem ... but your views are quite instructive in relation to the 'culture of death' that is now on the rise in our society ... and is a threat to Human life from conception to Natural Death ... and all ages and stages in-between.
    Obliq wrote: »
    Are you sure that's not one of the images of fetuses that Liveaction/Youth Defence et al have pilfered from stock photos? I remember recently they were using a pretty picture of a ickle cutsey fetus in their latest poster campaign, and were unaware that had been taken originally by a Norwegian (I think norwegian - I can look it up if ya want) photographer who actually used real aborted fetuses to produce faked up photos of a fetus in the womb. Hmmm, the blue background looks suspicious............
    I just linked to it ... and I don't know its provenance ... but if it's actually an aborted foetus, like you say it is ... it shows that this unborn baby ... was just like the born variety ... and if it was killed ... all I can do is to pray for the people who did this, that they will repent and be Saved ... because Jesus loves them too and wants to Save them.

    As for the little baby, its obviously at peace ... and I have no doubt that it is now safely in the protective arms of Jesus Christ ... who is far better.

    Can anybody look at that photo and not be moved to protect such an innocent defenseless little creature ... if it was a little bunny rabbit, people would be horrified if somebody deliberately killed it because it was in their way ... or was otherwise 'cramping their style' ... so should we not be all the more horrified at the deliberate killing of this beautiful baby Human Being?
    Man's inhumanity to man will never cease to amaze and appall me


  • #828
    amorphous
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭amorphous


    J C wrote: »
    Can anybody look at that photo and not be moved to protect such an innocent defenseless little creature ... if it was a little bunny rabbit, people would be horrified if somebody deliberately killed it because it was in their way ... or was otherwise 'cramping their style' ... so should we not be all the more horrified at the deliberate killing of a beautiful baby Human Being?

    It's not a creature or human being. It's a fetus!:rolleyes:


  • #829
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    amorphous wrote: »
    It's not a creature or human being. It's a fetus!:rolleyes:
    ... and calling it a 'foetus' somehow allows it to be killed???
    ... come on guys ... its a baby Human Being at the foetal stage of life.

    ... and its no more deserving of being killed than a born Human.

    Just have a look at it ... and tell me how it substantially differs from a born Human Baby.

    liveaction_tree.jpg


  • #830
    martinnew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭martinnew


    amorphous wrote: »
    It's not a creature or human being. It's a fetus!:rolleyes:


    Of course the fetus is 100% a human being. What proof to you have otherwise? Empirical evidence is there for all to see.




    PRinc_photo_of_fetus_at_16_weeks.jpg


  • #831
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    martinnew wrote: »
    Of course the fetus is 100% a human being. What proof to you have otherwise? Empirical evidence is there for all to see.
    You're correct that s/he is 100% Human ... but they are being killed by the million all over the world ... it's called the 'culture of death' ...
    ... and it also encompasses warfare/terrorism, euthanasia, 'gun culture' and all of the other legal and illegal mechanisms of deliberate killing ... that are real and present dangers to us all.

    Part of the problem that we also face, Martin ... is that some people don't think that Human life is anything special before or after birth.
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by Obliq
    What's so special about human beings again?


  • Advertisement
  • #832
    martinnew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭martinnew


    J C wrote: »
    Part of the problem we face, Martin ... is that some people don't value Human life before or after birth.

    Its what happens when people deform their conscience and their reason with their own failings and make a wrong a right in their mind.

    The wilful targeting of the child in itself is objectively wrong. It was wrong for the greeks before Christianity ever appeared on the scene. Hippocratic Oath had it clear "I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy".

    Abortion was wrong for the Greeks, Its wrong for all major religions.

    Of course it suits Governments to push abortion. It controls birthrate, it rids society of costly handicapped children (like 70%+ Downs Syndrome children in the UK).

    And now we are having a Legislation pushed in Irish society without ANY democratic mandate. Akin to dictatorship.


  • #833
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    martinnew wrote: »
    Its what happens when people deform their conscience and their reason with their own failings and make a wrong a right in their mind.

    The wilful targeting of the child in itself is objectively wrong. It was wrong for the greeks before Christianity ever appeared on the scene. Hippocratic Oath had it clear "I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy".

    Abortion was wrong for the Greeks, Its wrong for all major religions.

    Of course it suits Governments to push abortion. It controls birthrate, it rids society of costly handicapped children (like 70%+ Downs Syndrome children in the UK).
    Everyone has to live with their conscience ... and they also have to give an account to God for what they do.

    That is an issue for both the person seeking an abortion and those providing it.
    We must therefore also consider the position of the many good and ethical Doctors and other medical professionals, who must be protected where they refuse to have anything to do with abortion ... and unless very stong conscientious objection legislation is enacted, they could face sacking/ being struck off, if abortion legislation is enacted.


  • #834
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    martinnew wrote: »
    The BIG deal is that as Christians (and as Muslim/Jews) God has commanded us to not kill.

    Going to an abortion clinic and saying I don't want to have the Child because, its not the right time, because its not a Boy, because its not perfect, because it has downs syndrome, because it does not fit with my holiday plans or my career. Targeting your child for destruction, is wrong.

    When you intentionally decide to end your child's life, you commit murder.

    But you are not killing anyone. You believe other people are doing the killing. Why don't the pro-life movement make hand out leaflets to gang land members and ask them to stop killing?

    You see where I am going with this is I struggle to see why Christians are so dogmatic about this issue. It is unclear when life begins. Scripture tell us nothing. And you are not killing anyone. And when you want to you can find all sorts of reasons to (Augustine's Just war for example).

    It is my opinion that the motivation behind all of this is that the Christian pro - lifers associate abortion with sex outside marriage and with a hedonistic lifestyle. One that they battle to avoid. They don't like the idea that other
    people reject their dogma and enjoy things (drugs, casual sex) that they they struggle to avoid.

    They see legal abortion as a threat to their faith. It makes it even harder to resist these things when the state endorses alternative lifestyles.

    You can call this all crazy but I never hear anything close to a rational reason to suggest otherwise. You can hang on to "it's murder" all you like. But that view is predicated on there being a life in existence. This is a complex existential question, something that does not have a clear objective answer.


  • #835
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    martinnew wrote: »
    Of course the fetus is 100% a human being. What proof to you have otherwise? Empirical evidence is there for all to see.




    PRinc_photo_of_fetus_at_16_weeks.jpg

    Rather than be dogmatic about this. Why not tackle this? Why is it so obvious to Christians that the fetus is a human being and no so simple to agnostics / atheists?


  • #836
    martinnew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭martinnew


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    But you are not killing anyone. You believe other people are doing the killing. Why don't the pro-life movement make hand out leaflets to gang land members and ask them to stop killing?

    You see where I am going with this is I struggle to see why Christians are so dogmatic about this issue. It is unclear when life begins. Scripture tell us nothing. And you are not killing anyone. And when you want to you can find all sorts of reasons to (Augustine's Just war for example).

    It is my opinion that the motivation behind all of this is that the Christian pro - lifers associate abortion with sex outside marriage and with a hedonistic lifestyle. One that they battle to avoid. They don't like the idea that other
    people reject their dogma and enjoy things (drugs, casual sex) that they they struggle to avoid.

    They see legal abortion as a threat to their faith. It makes it even harder to resist these things when the state endorses alternative lifestyles.

    You can call this all crazy but I never hear anything close to a rational reason to suggest otherwise. You can hang on to "it's murder" all you like. But that view is predicated on there being a life in existence. This is a complex existential question, something that does not have a clear objective answer.

    The gangland killings that happen are ilegal, all our laws forbid it. What we are now being asked to accept is a law allowing for the killing of a child.

    Lifes begins at conception. It always has done. Its very clear. Just because a mother does not want her child, does not mean to need to re-write our laws.

    Also Christian and Pro-life and 2 different groups. Not all who are Pro-life are Christians, there are also Atheists, humanists, Jews, Muslims, etc..


  • #837
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    martinnew wrote: »
    Also Christian and Pro-life and 2 different groups. Not all who are Pro-life are Christians, there are also Atheists, humanists, Jews, Muslims, etc..
    And not all who are christian are anti-choice... Or are they not proper christians?

    MrP


  • #838
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    And not all who are christian are anti-choice... Or are they not proper christians?

    MrP
    Abortion breaks the Sixth Commandment not to kill ... so it is deeply sinful ... and is therefore forbidden by Christian Doctrine.
    While individual Christians have undobtedly committed the sin of abortion (along with many other sins) ... abortion (or any other sin) cannot be condoned by any Christian Church that isn't heretical or apostate.

    However, just like every other sin, abortion can be forgiven by repenting and believing on Jesus Christ to Save you.
    ... I give you Norma McCorvey AKA 'Jane Roe' - the woman whose 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v Wade resulted in the widespread availability of abortion in the USA, and who subsequently worked in an abortion clinic herself.
    ... and who repented and became a Christian in 1995 - and is now one of the most vociferous Anti-abortion advocates in America today. An amazing woman with an amazing story.



  • #839
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    But you are not killing anyone. You believe other people are doing the killing. Why don't the pro-life movement make hand out leaflets to gang land members and ask them to stop killing?
    For evil to prevail, all it takes is for good people to remain silent ... and each country has the right (indeed the responsibility) to enact laws to protect the vulnerable and the weak from exploitation and death.
    If somebody was seriously suggesting that laws were to be introduced providing immunity to gangland killers, I think that pro-life people (and many other people besides) would also be objecting to this ... but this is not the case and therefore this is a 'strawman' argument.

    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    You see where I am going with this is I struggle to see why Christians are so dogmatic about this issue. It is unclear when life begins. Scripture tell us nothing. And you are not killing anyone. And when you want to you can find all sorts of reasons to (Augustine's Just war for example).
    Everyone who values their own life ... needs to value other people's lives ... because if attidues develop in society where respect for Human Life ceases ... then we will all be in iminent danger - from each other.
    Killing somebody in self-defense where there is a real and substantive risk of death to you ... and no other way of resolving the situation, is morally licit.
    Equally, going to war if you are attacked - but only until the attacker surrenders or is defeated, is also morally justified self-defense. None of this has any parallel in killing innocent unborn children ... but it does have parallels with providing all medically necessary intervention to save a mothers life that is in real and substantive risk from continuing with a pregnancy.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    It is my opinion that the motivation behind all of this is that the Christian pro - lifers associate abortion with sex outside marriage and with a hedonistic lifestyle. One that they battle to avoid. They don't like the idea that other
    people reject their dogma and enjoy things (drugs, casual sex) that they they struggle to avoid.
    A complete red herring ... if they wanted casual sex to be made illegal ... they would be campaignning for this ... and they're not!!
    Less casual and more responsible sex is a good idea - but legally enforcing it isn't, as the prime beneficiaries are the people involved.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    They see legal abortion as a threat to their faith. It makes it even harder to resist these things when the state endorses alternative lifestyles.
    Legalising abortion is no more a threat to faith than legalising any other form of deliberate killing ... but it is a direct threat to vulnerable unborn Human Beings ... who share a common Humanity with us all.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    You can call this all crazy but I never hear anything close to a rational reason to suggest otherwise. You can hang on to "it's murder" all you like. But that view is predicated on there being a life in existence. This is a complex existential question, something that does not have a clear objective answer.
    It is objectively clear that we are dealing here with unborn Human children that are substantially identical to born Human children ... and all the weasel words in the world cannot deny this bald fact.


  • #840
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    martinnew wrote: »

    The gangland killings that happen are ilegal, all our laws forbid it. What we are now being asked to accept is a law allowing for the killing of a child.

    Lifes begins at conception. It always has done. Its very clear. Just because a mother does not want her child, does not mean to need to re-write our laws.

    Also Christian and Pro-life and 2 different groups. Not all who are Pro-life are Christians, there are also Atheists, humanists, Jews, Muslims, etc..
    Why do you think it is very clear to you that life begins at conception and not others?


  • Advertisement
  • #841
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    For evil to prevail, all it takes is for good people to remain silent ... and each country has the right (indeed the responsibility) to enact laws to protect the vulnerable and the weak from exploitation and death.
    If somebody was seriously suggesting that laws were to be introduced providing immunity to gangland killers, I think that pro-life people (and many other people besides) would also be objecting to this ... but this is not the case and therefore this is a 'strawman' argument.


    Everyone who values their own life ... needs to value other people's lives ... because if attidues develop in society where respect for Human Life ceases ... then we will all be in iminent danger.
    Killing somebody in self-defense where there is a real and substantive risk of death to you and no other way of resolving the situation, is morally licit.
    Equally, going to war if you are attacked ... but only until the attacker surrenders or is defeated, is also morally justified self-defense. None of this has any parallel in killing innocent unborn children ... but it does have parallels with providing all medically necessary intervention to save a mothers life that is in real and substantive risk from continuing with a pregnancy.

    A complete red herring ... if they wanted casual sex to be made illegal ... they would be campaignning for this ... and they're not!!


    Legalising abortion is no more a threat to faith than legalising any other form of deliberate killing ... but it is a direct threat to vulnerable unborn Human Beings ... who share a common Humanity with us all.

    It is objectively clear that we are dealing here with unborn Human children that are substantially identical to born Human children ... and all the weasel words in the world cannot deny this bald fact.
    ... its like a murderer arguing that its 'a complex existential question', whether their victim was actually 'a life' at the time he killed her ... such utter illogical semantics would be dismissed instantly by any judge or jury trying such a case.
    There are laws for when to use ... Is there any chance you could follow them so your posts could become readable? Note, I am not suggesting there should be agreement on the exact point when they could become readable but they will definitely become more readable.


Advertisement