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…2728303233…59

Comments

  • #872
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    martinnew wrote: »


    Abortion should not be used as contraception. Its very different.

    You deal with the consequences by facing them, not by killing a life.
    I agree. But there are thousands of women every year who not matter what you say choose abortion. In countries where is it is not possible to get an abortion legally and not possible to get the boat to England some of them have a back street abortion and in thousands of cases every year die. now how about you face up to that problem?


  • #873
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    j c is legal and safe abortion better or worse than back street and unsafe abortion?
    Tim, you are presenting a false moral dichotomy here - by asking us to choose between two wrongs.

    It's a bit like asking if shooting somebody in the head is better or worse than repeatedly hitting them over the head with a hammer ...
    ... while shooting them may be less painful and somewhat more humane ... they are killed either way - so from a moral perspective they are both equally wrong.
    The idea that somebody will have a back street abortion, if a medical one isn't available is generally untrue - as the chances of it going wrong ... and the back street abortionist getting into very deep trouble, are very high. Equally, most women think more of themselves than to put their lives on the line with an unsanitory and dangerous procedure, like a back-street abortion.
    I would classify a back street abortion as a form of self-harm ... and it would need to be dealt with on this basis.

    I would also reject your use of the term 'legal and safe abortion' ... because all abortions are unsafe for the unborn children being killed - and therefore both medical and back street abortions are deeply morally wrong. I'm sorry to have to say this ... but it has to be said, because it's true.
    BTW, I'm not judging the desperate situations that some pregnant women may find themselves in - but I must say that killing their child is never the answer ... even though it may seem so at the time.

    I would appeal to any woman contemplating an abortion to please think about it again ... and to seek help from a pregnancy counselling agency that is pro-life - and will therefore provide practical help to allow her to not to have to abort her baby.
    The brilliant single mothers out there who have given their children the gift of life, when they could so easily have aborted them, provides an example to us all ... and I also admire the women who couldn't cope with rearing a child ... and therefore put their children up for adoption - and gave the gift of a child to a loving couple, who could not have one themselves.

    Any woman hurt by abortion should also contact one of the pro-life agencies out there to receive counselling and non-judgemental support - and they shouldn't suffer post-abortion trauma in silence, on their own.
    Please know that Christians love you, no matter what ... because there potentially goes any of us, if the circumstances are desperate enough ... and Jesus Christ came to forgive and Save everybody who repents and calls on His name to Save them.

    Finally, I would ask my fellow men out there, to behave responsibly, so that women don't find themselves with crisis pregnancies, in the first place ... and if it happens that their wife/girlfriend becomes pregnant, to not pressure her to go for an abortion ... but instead to support her and show her that you really love her, when she really needs you.


  • #874
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I agree. But there are thousands of women every year who not matter what you say choose abortion. In countries where is it is not possible to get an abortion legally and not possible to get the boat to England some of them have a back street abortion and in thousands of cases every year die. now how about you face up to that problem?
    You face up to this problem by health and morality education, the encouragement of abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage as well as the responsible use of effective contraception.
    Finally, you deal firmly with the back street abortionists themselves, with legal penalties that are proportionate and dissuasive.
    Everybody may not 'sign on' to such an approach ... but the side-effects for those who do, will be the almost total elimination STD transmission, as well as much greater all round happiness and prosperity.
    It also establishes a 'virtuous circle' whereby people live as God intended them to live, with love and respect for themselves and their fellow man and woman ... and with no need to kill anybody (including their unborn children).


  • #875
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    Tim, you are presenting a false moral dichotomy here - by asking us to choose between two wrongs.

    It's a bit like asking if shooting somebody in the head is better or worse than repeatedly hitting them over the head with a hammer ...
    ... while shooting them may be less painful and somewhat more humane ... they are killed either way - so from a moral perspective they are both wrong.
    The idea that somebody will have a back street abortion, if a medical one isn't available is generally untrue - as the chances of it going wrong ... and the back street abortionist getting into very deep trouble, are very high. Equally, most women think more of themselves than to put their lives on the line with an unsanitory and dangerous procedure, like a back-street abortion.
    I would classify a back street abortion as a form of self-harm ... and it would need to be dealt with on this basis.

    I would also reject your use of the term 'legal and safe abortion' ... because all abortions are unsafe for the unborn children being killed - and therefore both medical and back street abortions are deeply morally wrong. I'm sorry to have to say this ... but it has to be said, because it's true.
    BTW, I'm not judging the desperate situations that some pregnant women may find themselves in - but I must say that killing their child is never the answer ... even though it may seem so at the time.

    I would appeal to any woman contemplating an abortion to please think about it again ... and to seek help from a pregnancy counselling agency that is pro-life - and will therefore provide practical help to allow her to not to have to abort her baby.
    The brilliant single mothers out there who have given their children the gift of life, when they could so easily have aborted them, provides an example to us all ... and I also admire the women who couldn't cope with rearing a child ... and therefore put their children up for adoption - and gave the gift of a child to a loving couple, who could not have one themselves.

    Any woman hurt by abortion should also contact one of the pro-life agencies out there to receive counselling and non-judgemental support - and they shouldn't suffer post-abortion trauma in silence, on their own.
    Please know that Christians love you, no matter what ... because there potentially goes any of us, if the circumstances are desperate enough ... and Jesus Christ came to forgive and Save everybody who repents and calls on His name to Save them.

    Finally, I would ask my fellow men out there, to behave responsibly, so that women don't find themselves with crisis pregnancies, in the first place ... and if it happens that their wife/girlfriend becomes pregnant, to not pressure her to go for an abortion ... but instead to support her and show her that you really love her, when she really needs you.
    It is not a false dichotomy. You have legal save abortion those women do not die. You don't they do, could you answer the question please?


  • #876
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    It is not a false dichotomy. You have legal save abortion those women do not die. You don't they do, could you answer the question please?
    I have answered your question.

    It is a false dichotomy ... either way unborn children die ... and it doesn't logically follow that the absence of legal abortion will result in back street abortion.

    Pregnant women won't die ... and don't die in Ireland ... from back street abortions ...
    ... and in any country where there is back street abortion ... the answer isn't legalising more abortion.

    The idea that somebody will have a back street abortion, if a medical one isn't available is generally untrue - as the chances of it going wrong ... and the back street abortionist getting into very deep trouble, are very high. Equally, most women think more of themselves than to put their lives on the line with an unsanitory and dangerous procedure, like a back-street abortion.
    I would classify a back street abortion as a form of self-harm ... and it would need to be dealt with on this basis.

    .. and I have already answered you question on how to eliminate back street abortion (where it exists) here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82407598&postcount=874

    BTW ... I note that you haven't answered my question ...
    Quote:
    ... is this is where the 'pro-abortion' case finally ends up ... denying an objective scientific fact that everybody knows to be true (that each Human life begins at fertilisation)?
    Could I ask you why this is being done?


  • Advertisement
  • #877
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    I have answered your question.

    It is a false dichotomy ... either way unborn children die ... and it doesn't logically follow that the absence of legal abortion will result in back street abortion.

    Pregnant women won't die ... and don't die in Ireland ... from back street abortions ...
    ... and in any country where there is back street abortion ... the answer isn't legalising more abortion.

    The idea that somebody will have a back street abortion, if a medical one isn't available is generally untrue - as the chances of it going wrong ... and the back street abortionist getting into very deep trouble, are very high. Equally, most women think more of themselves than to put their lives on the line with an unsanitory and dangerous procedure, like a back-street abortion.
    I would classify a back street abortion as a form of self-harm ... and it would need to be dealt with on this basis.

    .. and I have already answered you question on how to eliminate back street abortion (where it exists) here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82407598&postcount=874

    BTW ... I note that you haven't answered my question ...

    Quote:
    ... is this is where the 'pro-abortion' case finally ends up ... denying an objective scientific fact that everybody knows to be true (that each Human life begins at fertilisation)?
    Could I ask you why this is being done?
    It is not a false dichotomy. Look at the evidence. It happens in every country where abortion is illegal unless you can get a flight to England. answer the question please?


  • #878
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    It is not a false dichotomy. Look at the evidence. It happens in every country where abortion is illegal unless you can get a flight to England. answer the question please?
    I have no problem answering your questions on this issue ... and I have done so already.

    We can't stop everyone behaving illegally or dangerously ... but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

    ... and if somebody starts behaving illegally or dangerously, this doesn't mean that we have to turn our laws upside down to dissuade them.
    The answer to a potentially very small number of one kind of abortion (back street) isn't the facilitation of a potentially very great number of another kind of abortion (Medical).

    Like I have already said, if there are back street abortions, you face up to this problem by health and morality education, the encouragement of abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage as well as the responsible use of effective contraception.
    Finally, you deal firmly with the back street abortionists themselves, with legal penalties that are proportionate and dissuasive.
    Everybody may not 'sign on' to such an approach ... but the side-effects for those who do, will be the almost total elimination of STD transmission, as well as much greater all round happiness and prosperity.
    It also establishes a 'virtuous circle' whereby people live as God intended them to live, with love and respect for themselves and their fellow man and woman ... and with no need to kill anybody (including their unborn children).


  • #879
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    You are misunderstanding science when you say objective scientific fact.


  • #880
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    You are misunderstanding science when you say objective scientific fact.
    How so?

    Are you saying that science hasn't established that each Human life begins at fertilisation?

    ... because, as a working conventionally qualified scientist, I can confirm that science has established this to be a fact.

    Anyway, the question that I (and at this stage, all Christians that I know) would like you to answer is why are you denying an objective fact (scientific or otherwise) that everybody knows to be true (that each Human life begins at fertilisation)?


  • #881
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    How so?

    Are you saying that science hasn't established that each Human life begins at fertilisation?

    ... because, as a working conventionally qualified scientist, I can confirm that science has established this to be a fact.

    Anyway, the question that I (and at this stage, all Christians that I know) would like you to answer is why are you denying an objective fact (scientific or otherwise) that everybody knows to be true (that each Human life begins at fertilisation)?
    What is produced is called a zygote or a fertilised egg. It depends on your definition of life if you consider that a life or just a fertilised egg beginning a gestation period which at some stage becomes a life. It is possible to put a zygote in a freezer and to later put in a womb and proceed with gestation.

    Do you think a frozen zygote is alive?


  • Advertisement
  • #882
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    What is produced is called a zygote or a fertilised egg. It depends on your definition of life if you consider that a life or just a fertilised egg beginning a gestation period which at some stage becomes a life.
    OK ... is it alive? ... YES.
    Does it contain the unique and entire genetic information for a Human Being? ... YES.
    Will s/he proceed in a deterministic manner to birth ... and eventually to old age and natural death ... unless somebody intervenes to kill him/her at some point along the continuum between fertilisation and natural death? ... YES

    ... sounds like each Human life begins at fertilisation allright, Tim ... so why are you doing your best to deny it?
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Do you think a frozen zygote is alive?
    It's certainly not dead ... so yes, of course, its alive ... but in suspended animation ... like somebody under a deep general anaesthetic.


  • #883
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    According to the who there are 20 million back street abortions per year and 70,000 deaths as a result every year. Could you confirm the only we should do is keep trying to spread Christian views as you outlined and accept that these that don't accept those opinions can just die?


  • #884
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    OK ... is it alive? ... YES.
    Does it contain the unique and entire genetic information for a Human Being? ... YES.
    Will s/he proceed in a deterministic manner to birth ... and eventually to old age and natural death ... unless somebody intervenes to kill him/her at some point along the continuum between fertilisation and natural death? ... YES

    ... sounds like each Human life begins at fertilisation allright, Tim ... so why are you doing your best to deny it?
    So you believe it is possible for a human to be alive and spend their life frozen in a freezer?


  • #885
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    According to the who there are 20 million back street abortions per year and 70,000 deaths as a result every year. Could you confirm the only we should do is keep trying to spread Christian views as you outlined and accept that these that don't accept those opinions can just die?
    Practically all of these people live in countries with poor access to contrception and all medical services.
    Back street abortions are a symptom of poverty and poor education ... and a lack of medical services, including effective contraception ... they are not due to a lack of medical abortion per se.
    ... and my recipe isn't a uniquely Christian one ... its a common sense approach ... that wouldn't necessarily be shared by every Christian that I know.
    If people continue to do illegal and dangerous things ... when there is a safe common-sense alternative available to them ... the answer isn't to facilitate the wholesale killing of their children.


  • #886
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    So you believe it is possible for a human to be alive and spend their life frozen in a freezer?
    A Human Beings destiny is to be born, live a normal life and eventually die and spend eternity with God, if s/he is Saved.
    The deliberate production of Human Beings to keep them frozen or experiment on them before disgarding them is also grossly immoral and shows no respect for their dignity as Human Beings.
    In this case, none of the possible personal difficulties encountered in pregnancy, that are used to justify abortion, are an issue ... and thus the pro-life case to not do this is even more clearcut and compelling.
    The argument that 'good' may come from it in the form of better medicines hasn't been validated to date, by improved treatments ... but even if it was, these treatments would have been produced through destructive experimentation to the point of death, on large numbers of tiny Human Beings ... that were deliberately created for this purpose.


  • #887
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    Practically all of these people live in countries with poor access to contrception and all medical services.
    Back street abortions are a symptom of poverty and poor education ... and a lack of medical services, including effective contraception ... they are not due to a lack of medical abortion per se.
    ... and my recipe isn't a uniquely Christian one ... its a common sense approach ... that wouldn't necessarily be shared by every Christian that I know.
    If people continue to do illegal and dangerous things ... when there is a safe common-sense alternative available to them ... the answer isn't to facilitate the wholesale killing of their children.
    can you name a country that is not poor where abortion is illegal and back street abortions do not happen so?


  • #888
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    A Human Beings destiny is to be born, live a normal life and eventually die and spend eternity with God, if s/he is Saved.
    The deliberate production of Human Beings to keep them frozen or experiment on them before disgarding them is also grossly immoral and shows no respect for their dignity as Human Beings.
    In this case, none of the possible personal difficulties encountered in pregnancy, that are used to justify abortion, are an issue ... and thus the pro-life case to not do this is even more clearcut and compelling.
    The argument that 'good' may come from it in the form of better medicines hasn't been validated to date, by improved treatments ... but even if it was, these treatments would have been produced through destructive experimentation to the point of death, on large numbers of tiny Human Beings ... that were deliberately created for this purpose.
    Could you just give yes or no.
    So you believe it is possible for a human to be alive and frozen in freezer at the same time?


  • #889
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    can you name a country that is not poor where abortion is illegal and back street abortions do not happen so?
    Back street abortions, by their nature are surreptitious ... so it is impossible for anybody to say with any certaintly that back street abortions do or don't occur anywhere.

    The bottom line is that back street abortions are dangerous to the mother and deadly to her child ... and shouldn't be done ...
    ... and medical abortions are deadly to the child and occasionally dangerous the mother ... and shouldn't also be done.

    The solution to both types of abortion would seem to be the same ... the more I think about it:-
    Health and morality education, the encouragement of abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage as well as the responsible use of effective contraception.
    ... and a support network for crisis pregnancies that gives women the real choice of giving birth to their child.


  • #890
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Could you just give yes or no.
    So you believe it is possible for a human to be alive and frozen in freezer at the same time?
    What do you think ... is it dead?
    ... of course it's alive ... but in suspended animation.
    ... and I'm saying that we clearly shouldn't be doing this, because it is a gross abuse of the lives and dignity the tiny Human Beings involved.


  • #891
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    Back street abortions, by their nature are surreptitious ... so it is impossible for anybody to say with any certaintly that back street abortions do or don't occur anywhere.

    The bottom line is that back street abortions are dangerous to the mother and deadly to her child ... and shouldn't be done ...
    ... and medical abortions are deadly to the child and occasionally dangerous the mother ... and shouldn't also be done.

    The solution to both types of abortion would seem to be the same ... the more I think about it:-
    Health and morality education, the encouragement of abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage as well as the responsible use of effective contraception.
    ... and a support network for crisis pregnancies that gives women the real choice of giving birth to their child.
    The WHO and the British medical journal have information on the matter. Are you saying they have managed to do what you are claiming is impossible?


  • Advertisement
  • #892
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    What do you think ... is it dead?
    ... of course it's alive ... but in suspended animation.
    ... and I'm saying that we clearly shouldn't be doing this, because it is a gross abuse of the lives and dignity the tiny Human Beings involved.
    I believe it is neither alive nor dead. At what temperature does the zygote become suspended in animation? Are there any other examples of anything being alive that is suspended in animation?


  • #893
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    The WHO and the British medical journal have information on the matter. Are you saying they have managed to do what you are claiming is impossible?
    At best, this 'inforrmation' can only be extrapolations from other data ... as it is extremely unlikely that a back street abortionist is going to keep and return accurate records on their nefarious activity.
    In any event, I'm not denying the existence of back street abortions ... I'm just questioning whether more abortion and death is the answer.


  • #894
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    At best, this 'inforrmation' can only be extrapolations from other data ... as it is extremely unlikely that a back street abortionist is going to keep and return accurate records on their nefarious activity.
    In any event, I'm not denying the existence of back street abortions ... I'm just questioning whether more abortion and death is the answer.
    Well you haven't got a better answer.


  • #895
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I believe it is neither alive nor dead. At what temperature does the zygote become suspended in animation? Are there any other examples of anything being alive that is suspended in animation?
    Death is permanent ... so something that isn't dead is alive.

    There are frogs, I believe, that survive freezing during hibernation ... and even their heart stops beating. The temperatures involved are not comparable to the much lower temperatures used to freeze embryos (-196 C) ... but it does illustrate that suspended animation is possible for adult multicellular lifeforms ... as well as embryos.
    http://scienceline.org/2008/06/ask-mahan-frogfreeze/

    Either way, frozen Human embryos are alive ... and they can be thawed out and go on to be implanted, born and live a normal Human life, like the rest of us.

    ... so they shouldn't be created and frozen, in the first place ... if the objective is to confine them to a freezer ... or to eventually kill them.


  • #896
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Well you haven't got a better answer.
    Life is better than death ... so my life-affirming answer is obviously better than your suggestion for a medically induced death as distinct from some 'ould wan' with a coathanger.
    The result for the child is that it lives, with my suggestions ... and it dies one way or the other with either variety of abortion.


  • #897
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    There are frogs, I believe, that survive freezing during hibernation ... and even their heart stops beating.
    http://scienceline.org/2008/06/ask-mahan-frogfreeze/

    Either way, frozen Human embryos are alive ... and they can be thawed and go on to be implanted, born and live a normal Human life, like the rest of us.
    Are you saying they are not living a human life in the freezer then?


  • #898
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    Life is better than death ... so my life-affirming answer is obviously better than your suggestion for a medically induced death as distinct from some 'ould wan' with a coathanger.
    I am not suggesting a medically induced death. Such a view is predicated on the foetus being objectively alive.


  • #899
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Are you saying they are not living a human life in the freezer then?
    I'm saying they are a living human life in the freezer ... but that they shouldn't be created and confined to there, in the first place.


  • #900
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I am not suggesting a medically induced death. Such a view is predicated on the foetus being objectively alive.
    This is a separate issue to the frozen embryo situation ...
    ... with a foetus we have what looks and behaves substantially like a newborn Human baby ... that most definitely isn't in suspended animation ... and a medical abortion does indeed involve the foetus having a medically induced death.


  • Advertisement
  • #901
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    I'm saying they are a living a human life in the freezer ... but that they shouldn't be created and confined to there, in the first place.
    How could tell the difference between a dead zygote in the freezer and a zygote that was alive in the freezer?


Advertisement