Abortion debate thread

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

So you want laws to be created on when to use '...' but you don't want laws to protect unborn children.
'Sweating the small stuff' doesn't even begin to describe this type of stuff.

... and, in any event, my posts are perfectly readable - and correctly punctuated in accordance with the rules of English Grammar.

J C wrote: »

So you want laws to be created on when to use '...' but you don't want laws to protect unborn children.
'Sweating the small stuff' doesn't even begin to describe this type of stuff.

I don't believe there is such a thing as an unborn child. Unlike you, I won't claim this is objective fact thou.

... and, in any event, my posts are perfectly readable - and correctly punctuated in accordance with the rules of English Grammar.

You are supposed to only use a ... when you are trying to leave something open to the imagination of the reader.

For example, I went home I heard a lot of noise upstairs and I was really worried. Slowly, I walked up the stairs. I was really very worried when I was reaching the top. Each breath become faster. My heartbeat raised. I didn't know what would come before me as made my final steps...

Here is how you would write that.

I went home ... I heard a lot of noise upstairs ... and I was really worried. Slowly, I walked up ... the stairs. I was really very worried ... when I was reaching ... the top. Each ... breath become faster. My heartbeat ... raised. I ... didn't ... know what would come... before me as... made my final steps...

martinnew wrote: »

Gestation lasts usually 280 days but Children have survived birth at 160 days. So what day does life actually start.

They only last with the intervention of medical science.

A sperm an egg can also last with the aid of medical science for years and years before they are conceived.

Earlier/Later.. There is universal consensus that a humans life as a unique being starts at conception.

No there is no agreement. That's just wacky. Burst the bubble.

Of course Pro-choice camp will justify on demand abortion by saying that the aborted child is not really a child, not really human. All regimes have excuses to commit their crimes. That does not make them right.

The pro-life camp would rather watch grown women (who we all agree are alive) die in back street abortions than legalise abortion to make it safe.

This is the madness of faith. At the end of the day, you would rather see someone die than have your faith challenged.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

You are presenting an inaccurate picture of most pro-life people? Who wants to see women die in back-street abortions? To be honest, that is as unfair as saying that those who support some form of access to abortion want to murder babies. Demonising the opposition is no way to have a balanced debate.

The consequence of not providing abortion is that women die in back street abortions. Thousands every year. The reality is sometimes in life, the consequences of your decisions are not what you intend. Therefore you have to examine both the intent and the consequence when thinking about the morality of something.

You don't intend for these women to die but that's what's happens as a direct result of not providing legal and safe abortion whether you like it or not.
Look at the evidence.

By the way, this isn't simply a dispute between the religious and non-religious, there are pro-life atheists and pro-choice Christians. Given this is the Christian forum though, don't be surprised to see people discussing the issue in terms of their faith.

I know. However, Christians are way more dogmatic about it.

Most atheists (myself included) will be swayed to the pro-choice side even thou they are against abortion in principle.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Incorrect. It depends on the definition of life. This is an existentialist question not a scientific matter.

Your sophistry is irrelevant, as it is an objective scientific fact, that the moment each Human life begins, is at the moment of fertilisation.
All this sophistry and existentialism are excuses to salve the conscience of people who know that it is wrong to kill fellow Human Beings ... but want to have abortions - and they 'square the circle' in their minds, by deeming the unborn child to not be Human life.
This de-humanisation of those we wish to kill has a long and ignoble history ...
... and it has no objective or moral validity.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is impossible to nail it to a single moment. It is like asking the exact moment the human species began.

Whatever about when the Human Species began (where there is a mega-thread discussing this particular issue) ... it is an obvious scientific fact that each Human life starts at the moment of fertilisation of an egg with a sperm ... and as this has been repeatedly observed to always be the case ... it has the status of a Biological Scientific Law.

... and the other great piece of sophistry are the words 'pro-chioce' ... which is just a euphimism for 'pro-abortion'.
... and ironically, the commonest feeing that women have when going for abortions, is that they have 'no choice'... but many go ahead, because of personal circumstances and pressure from other people, including their husbands/boyfriends/families :-

martinnew wrote: »

Then should we also make guns available for murderers?

Yes we should also make nuclear bombs available to them to. Would you get real and stop making a fool of yourself?

Just because it happens, does not make it right.

Whether it is right is not the point. The point is that it happens whether you like it or not. And by deluding yourself you can stop it happening women are dieing. Thousands every year.

Yes there were illegal abortions, but we are in on 1940's Britain when thousands died,, we are in 2012 Ireland where we have the best maternity care available.

In most countries where abortion is illegal (most african countries) there are thousand of back street abortions and thousands of women die. They die because they can't get a plane to England. In Ireland there are no back street abortions because they fly to England.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The pro-life camp would rather watch grown women (who we all agree are alive) die in back street abortions than legalise abortion to make it safe.

This is the madness of faith. At the end of the day, you would rather see someone die than have your faith challenged.

If what you say were true, this would indeed be madness ... but your argument is a 'strawman'.

Pro-life people don't want anybody to die.

... and abortion is never safe for the unborn children involved - as they always end up dead.

Ultimately, if a woman is really determined to get rid of her unborn child, she probably will.
What we need to do as Christians, is to reach out in love, to the hearts and minds of women, men and pro-abortionists ... to reverse this 'culture of death' that is ruining many peoples lives ... and to achieve healing for everyone affected by abortion ... including abortion providers, who should also be in our prayers.

J C wrote: »

Pro-life people don't want anybody to die.

Indeed they just turn a blind eye to the deaths.

They couldn't really call themselves pro-life and be acknowledeging these deaths could they?

What we need to do as Christians, is to reach out in love, to the hearts and minds of women, men and pro-abortionists ... to reverse this 'culture of death' that is ruining many peoples lives ... and to achieve healing for everyone affected by abortion.

But that hasn't worked. Look at the amount of back street abortions in Africa. Or keep your head in the sand. You decide.

J C wrote: »

How do you think that each Human life begins ?

It is impossible to nail down to a single point.

... and why are you denying the objective scientific fact that each Human life begins at fertilisation?

Because it is not an objective scientific fact.

J C wrote: »

Back street abortions are illegal and dangerous ... and women shouldn't avail of them.

Of course they shouldn't. But they do. They happen in every country which does not allow abortion and which does not have cheap air travel to England.

I have no knowledge of the situation in Africa.
The only people 'keeping their heads in the sand' are the people availing of back street abortions (wherever they occur) ... with the obvious risk to life and health that they represent.

That's possibly the most incredible thing I have ever read.

You admit to having no knowledge of what happens in Africa when it is quite easy to get information and then tell women who are in danger of losing their lives that they have their heads in the sand.

You know something you don't just give Christians a bad name, you give men a bad name.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Of course they shouldn't. But they do. They happen in every country which does not allow abortion and which does not have cheap air travel to England.

The argument that back street abortions will occur unless abortion is legalised is equivalent to arguing that intravenous heroin should be legalised and made available on the NHS to everybody ... just because a tiny minority may kill themselves by 'shooting up' in unsanitary conditions ... because hospitals can't legally give them intravenous heroin.

We shouldn't engage in evil (widespread abortion) to reduce the risk of another evil (back-street abortion). The answer is for people to do neither.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's possibly the most incredible thing I have ever read.

You admit to having no knowledge of what happens in Africa when it is quite easy to get information and then tell women who are in danger of losing their lives that they have their heads in the sand.

They certainly shouldn't have back-street abortions ... which are obviously extremely dangerous.
If they do so in full knowledge of the risks involved then 'having their heads in the sand' is the least of their problems.
... and if they don't know the risks of back-street abortion, then Health Education, abstinance or only engaging in sex within a committed Christian marriage and the availability of effective contraception, rather than widespread abortion, would appear to be the solution.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You know something you don't just give Christians a bad name, you give men a bad name.

If warning women of the risks to their mental and spiritual health from all abortion, is deserving of a bad name ... then you may have a point.

If encouraging other men to support their pregnant wives and girlfriends in a loving and responsible manner is deserving of a bad name ... then you may also have a point.

If reassuring women who have had an abortion, and indeed abortion providers themselves, that they are loved by Christians ... and can be forgiven and saved by Jesus Christ is deserving of a bad name ... then I'm guilty as charged.

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

Why are people talking about Africa is this not about Ireland?My own view is prevention is better than cure and birth control should be used.Too often people have sex without thinking of the fact that could get pregnant or catch a STD.

But sure everyone thinks that. However in the real world sometimes problems happen.

As for Africa, you see Ireland can leave with its head in the sand and not have to deal with the consequences of not providing legal and safe abortion. we export the problem. We should grow up and deal with it.