Abortion whats your stance?

Hagar

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Maybe to someone who can't make the distinction between knowing something is wrong and still doing it and having no concept of right or wrong.

Like abortionists perhaps.

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

No, I'm saying you should accept that the private affairs of another person is none of your business.



You can still advocate for "babies" without resorting to legal restrictions. If you're so confident of your position, go make others agree with you and convince them not to have one.



I have only condemned repression and mob rule. I specifically stated that I respect that other people (in this case the majority of Irish society) have differing views, and wished that same courtesy would be returned. You missed the point.



It has everything to do with religion. The whole premise of a foetus being a person is that it has a soul, an entirely religious concept. The backbone of democracy is to ensure freedom. Keeping morality is the duty of other things.



You also miss the point. Can you please tell me exactly where I tried to silence dissenting opinions? Quite the opposite, I said quote "a far more honourable way to do it is to debate the ethics of it and convince people not to do it".



Yes we do. Homosexuality, freedom of religion, freedom to do legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol, freedom to kill oneself, divorce, anal sex, three-or-more-way sex (pretty much all sex in fact), etc. There is an endless list of things which some people consider immoral and others do not, but we do not ban them for this reason. Abortion is the exception.



Considering the rate of approval of abortion is in the 80% range among Irish atheists http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055314710, I think it is a fair bet to assume religion plays a signifigant role. The saying goes get your rosaries off my ovaries.



Could you please explain in detail the reasoning used to justify this statment?




Just as some will always feel it is none of your business, which is why my post holds true.



But I see it as a ball of cells with no value as a person. I see your militant pro-life as an intolerable incursion into my private life, no more excusible than if you said I was not allowed to keep my foetus. Why would I allow you to have any say about what I do in my private life? So you see, no matter how strongly you are sure you are right, someone else feels just as strongly the opposite. Only live and let live is acceptable.



It is entirely fair! To say it is ok to murder a baby in Britain is horrific, which is what you are saying. If you want to remain consistant, the only acceptable way to do it is to prosecute people who leave Ireland for that purpose or to stop them leaving.





The United States never legalised abortion, per se. The supreme court unilaterally and undemocratically decided to strike down the anti-abortion law because it was unconstitutional. The constitution states that the government (and by extension the electorate) does not have the right or power to have that level of interference in a private citizens' life. I think this is superior to our system, for many reasons, not just the abortion issue.



I see you are uncritical and perhaps unaware of the faults and limitations of democracy. If there were 3 people on an island, you, me and one other, would you accept it if the other and I voted to make you give us all your food? Of course not. Minority rights are the life-blood of a free society.

Of course, please feel free to admit you'd rather live in an unfree society.



Maybe to someone who can't make the distinction between knowing something is wrong and still doing it and having no concept of right or wrong.

the anti-religous secular bigotary quote is one of mine

what i am saying is why should someone who follows a religions views be less valid than someone who doesnt?

next thing you will be creatin real trouble and disenfranchising the christians?

CDfm

Jakkass wrote: »

I am the youth of today also, aged 19. There are many more my age I know that share my views also.

Good on ya.

Not only young, well read but a good sence of humour aswell.

I thought you were a lot older from your posts

WEll on ya for fessing up

ChocolateSauce

CDfm wrote: »

what i am saying is why should someone who follows a religions views be less valid than someone who doesnt?

next thing you will be creatin real trouble and disenfranchising the christians?

You ask why should your opinion be less valid than mine?

Why should someone who doesn't believe in a soul have their opinions discounted?

Why should my view be less valid than yours?

I never said what you accuse me of. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what one's religious beliefs are, my argument still holds, as I never dismissed other people's opinions regarding abortion. My whole post was not about abortion, it was about freedom.



As for your last paragraph, what does that mean? If you're talking about my secularism, no major secular outlook of modern times advocates stopping people from practicing their religion, so your fears are unfounded and also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote:

Yes we do. Homosexuality, freedom of religion, freedom to do legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol, freedom to kill oneself, divorce, anal sex, three-or-more-way sex (pretty much all sex in fact), etc. There is an endless list of things which some people consider immoral and others do not, but we do not ban them for this reason. Abortion is the exception.

Abortion and assisted suicide are the only ones that deal with life and death, and thus they are illegal in Ireland (thankfully).

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I am 34 Zulu, and Im starting to get somewhat tired of your accustations of insults in my posts and my being uncivil, I note its as a way of avoiding a direct question.

Which direct question would that be Carlybabe? The implication that I was not a member of the "youth of today"??
I call shenanigans, repost any direct questions, and I'll answer them. I, unlike yourself, have answered any question put to me. You on the other hand have avoided direct questions time and again.

Zulu

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It has everything to do with religion. The whole premise of a foetus being a person is that it has a soul, an entirely religious concept.

Who said anything about a soul?
Oh, wait. That was you. :rolleyes:

Why would I allow you to have any say about what I do in my private life? So you see, no matter how strongly you are sure you are right, someone else feels just as strongly the opposite. Only live and let live is acceptable.

You do understand how law works don't you?

Zulu

some user wrote:

I never said i was ''totally'' for abortion..

I simply said.. if you were a parent, and your 14 year old daughter got pregnant.. would you not think, that it would be WISE for her to get an abortion? Or would you be willing to take on that role for her?

No. I wouldn't

the_syco

I'm pro-choice. If the lass doesn't want to keep it, cool, inform her of adoption, etc. If she's afraid of the baby (due to religion, social pressure, etc), get her to talk to Cura, or someone. If she wants to terminate it before it becomes something, tell her the options, and book her in for some counsling. Some women feel weird after the termination/abortion, so a chat to someone to get her head straight would be a good idea, both before and after. Obviously someone non-religious who won't try to put the fear of god into them, of course.

Finally, no birth control is 100%. Not even abstinence. You may think, surely by abstinence, you eliminate the risk? Well, there's rape.

philologos

the_syco wrote: »

Finally, no birth control is 100%. Not even abstinence. You may think, surely by abstinence, you eliminate the risk? Well, there's rape.

99.9%? The chances of being raped are very low. However, I still would encourage adoption in cases of rape.

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

You ask why should your opinion be less valid than mine?

Why should someone who doesn't believe in a soul have their opinions discounted?

Why should my view be less valid than yours?

I never said what you accuse me of. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what one's religious beliefs are, my argument still holds, as I never dismissed other people's opinions regarding abortion. My whole post was not about abortion, it was about freedom.

As for your last paragraph, what does that mean? If you're talking about my secularism, no major secular outlook of modern times advocates stopping people from practicing their religion, so your fears are unfounded and also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

What I am saying is that being anti-abortion and a christian is not synonymous.

Similarily, not all christians are anti- abortion.

It is implied in your posts that there is some kind of christian agenda out there and that no atheists hold the view that abortion should not be legalised.From posts on the site some 20% of atheists are anti-abortion.Opinion polls are not referenda and the only result that counted was the vote on the day.

You might say if the referendum was held today- but hey- a referendum has to be put before the people by the Oireachtas and I dont see that happening. You could also say that fear that abortion would be imposed on Ireland influenced some people to Vote No to Lisbon.


Not all people who favour a liberalisation of abortion would support the free for all that you see in other countries. But would see abortion as a solution as the nucleur option in extreme cases.Lots of people hold that view and so would not support the pro-choice movement.

Using the US legislation as a standard is a bit apt because neither the people nor legislature voted on the current position.In Ireland it has been before the people and legislature and the people have spoken.

I think we are lucky that way because we live so close to the UK thus allowing ourselves to have the safety valve and develop views on this with a national conscience and if its out of step with the rest of the world -so what. Thats what concensus politics and democracy is all about.

The argument is about abortion not about others imposing their morality on you and that prevailing view is that both the mother and child hold equal rights and that information is available and people who want to avail of it can travel outside the state.

So nobody is imposing their views on to you or obstructing what you see as your rights or freedom.They just see things differently.

Whats happening is the majority of the people and the legislature have said " we are not really comfortable with it" and wouldnt like to see it available in the same way it is in other countries. Fairly sensible approach.

CDfm

some user wrote:

I never said i was ''totally'' for abortion..

I simply said.. if you were a parent, and your 14 year old daughter got pregnant.. would you not think, that it would be WISE for her to get an abortion? Or would you be willing to take on that role for her?

If someone, hasnt enough money to even have a few drinks on the weekend, who is struggling to even get a degree in something, who hasnt the financial backing to support a child, who is also a teenager, are you telling me, it is RIGHT that they bring a child into the world before they have the financial support?

i think it would be worse..
and dont call it a child.. because, it hasnt developed into one yet. its not like throwing a 2 year old in the bin.. if its during the early weeks, then its better than throwing it in the bin when its born, because some kids do that too!

Pro-choice supporters always use shock examples.

Yeah - teenage pregnancy is shocking in my view. But I think that society no longer is shocked by it- the welfare system provides for it and teenage mothers are nannied.

I disagree with you that the numbers would decrease significantly with the introduction of abortion into Ireland.

CDfm

eveie wrote: »

it is carlybabe, it basically cell mitosis(as you have pointed out in the past my spelling isnt great:))
yes the egg from the mother has the same dna but when fertalised with the sperm is generates a completley different set of dna

Nice to see you back eveie - missed the exchanges between you and carlybabe which i always enjoy:D

BTW - I heard somewhere that raw garlic if applied kills warts- and while off topic I may not come accross two wart experts again- is it true?

Your spellings alright and I always get your point but people named Brian could get very offended:)

eveie

hey cdfm, i actually love insulting people.
as for the warts i dont have a clue but its worth a try i guess. obviously you belive that a wart and an unborn baby are different?

kizzyr i think her parents were brave in thier decision, they have one older child who has learned things that a person 4 times her age wouldnt know. she is very caring and understands the meaning of life and how life is so precious, her sister will not live for much longer, its surprising thats she's gotten this far.
to say that she has no quality of life is ridiclous, she has only the one body as we all do, we experience what we are able to, she has known no different so in her eyes she is equal. you know shes one of the happiest kids ive ever seen, she isnt spoilt or bought with money you give her a hug and her eyes light up, its the most beautiful thing ever and to say that her parents are selfish for giving her the chance to feel loved well......its selfish.
im very aware that a cleft palate is cosmetic, but also it goes hand in hand with some heart disorders. only a few years ago a vicor(female) brought to court the nhs because they were allowing abortions for children with cleft palates, she herself was born with a cleft palate. ive freinds who are deaf but there are children who are aborted EVERY DAY because of it, do you not realise that the smallest of disibilities is being used as a reason or a "conscience clearer" to abort a child???
i am able bodied have all my factualtys intact, i have absolutly no right what so ever to say who lives and who dies and to try and create a perfect population where disibility doesnt exist. maybe if it came to your door and you saw first hand the emotions and love you may feel different, im not saying for one minute that its easy but it isnt a reason to abort a child. would you take that stane if a child was left severly disabled after an accident???? ah sure kill it it has no quality of life? its the same thing only the child is born and in your opinion has rights

eveie

there have been a number of high profile people who were unsuccessful abortions, as in they were thrown in a bin after being pulled from the womb and they survived. many of them speak out about abortion and how horrific it is

Helix

100% pro choice

Nevyn

eveie wrote: »

there have been a number of high profile people who were unsuccessful abortions, as in they were thrown in a bin after being pulled from the womb and they survived. many of them speak out about abortion and how horrific it is

ok if they are so high profile you should be able to link to their stories.
Proof please.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

ok if they are so high profile you should be able to link to their stories.
Proof please.

Are you seriously doubting that abortions do and have failed in the past?

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

Abortion and assisted suicide are the only ones that deal with life and death, and thus they are illegal in Ireland (thankfully).

Now you bring in assisted suicide too? If I want to die because my life is hell (like I'm paralysed from the neck down), who do you think you are to tell me I may not? If I were in that situation, only my paralysis would stop me from strangling the self-rightous, arrogant sadist who would have me live like that.

zulu wrote: »

Who said anything about a soul?
Oh, wait. That was you.

So are you trying to say you don't think a foetus has a soul?

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying is that being anti-abortion and a christian is not synonymous.

I agree. But you must admit, the vast majority of anti-abortionists are Christian (in the west), even if the majority of Christians are not anti-abortion.

CDfm wrote: »

It is implied in your posts that there is some kind of christian agenda out there and that no atheists hold the view that abortion should not be legalised.From posts on the site some 20% of atheists are anti-abortion.Opinion polls are not referenda and the only result that counted was the vote on the day.

Sadly, it is a largely religious agenda. Largely, not entirely. It doesn't matter if it were Jerry Falwell or Richard Dawkins telling someone they can't abort, at the end of the day the effect is the same.

CDfm wrote: »

Not all people who favour a liberalisation of abortion would support the free for all that you see in other countries. But would see abortion as a solution as the nucleur option in extreme cases.Lots of people hold that view and so would not support the pro-choice movement.

You can abort in Ireland if the mother's life is in danger, so the people you talk about already have their prefered degree of choice.

CDfm wrote: »

Using the US legislation as a standard is a bit apt because neither the people nor legislature voted on the current position.In Ireland it has been before the people and legislature and the people have spoken.

Yes, and that is the problem I've been talking about the whole time. The majority have spoken, end of story. My entire point has been that the majority have no moral right to dictate to the minority in private affairs. I guess I can spell it out a little more: In this case, democracy is bad for society. The fact that, technically, Amercia (and most of Europe) is less democratic than Ireland is a good thing for the citizens of those countries, because those societies with less democracy are more free.

CDfm wrote: »

So nobody is imposing their views on to you or obstructing what you see as your rights or freedom.They just see things differently.

This is ridiculous. Can you please tell me how no one is imposing their views on me? Do you actually see the stupidness of that statement? What part of "We don't agree with abortion, so we've decided you can't do it" is NOT imposing one's views on me?

CDfm wrote: »

I disagree with you that the numbers would decrease significantly with the introduction of abortion into Ireland.

That's your opinion, but what does the evidence say? It just might show your opinion to be incorrect.

Zulu

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

So are you trying to say you don't think a foetus has a soul?

I don't know if anyone has a soul. I'm agnostic, but that's neither here nor there.
Can you not comprehend that non-religious and anti-abortion aren't mutually exclusive?

But you must admit, the vast majority of anti-abortionists are Christian (in the west), even if the majority of Christians are not anti-abortion.

No body has to admit that. I would imagine that a majority of Christians are anti-abortion.
There is a significant difference.
Can you provide proof otherwise?

democracy is bad for society

Another point we'll disagree on.

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you seriously doubting that abortions do and have failed in the past?

She made the claim the burden of proof is on her.

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Now you bring in assisted suicide too? If I want to die because my life is hell (like I'm paralysed from the neck down), who do you think you are to tell me I may not?

If I want to steal, well... because I need a bit of cash who do you think you are to tell me why not?

If I want to murder, well... because someone is annoying me, who do you think you are to tell me why not?

The law is the law, you follow it. They are the rules which a national society (in this case Ireland) lay down to determine acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. You have two options if you don't like these said laws, 1) find a sizeable majority to form a political group in an election to change them, 2) move to a different jurisdiction.

Zulu wrote:

No body has to admit that. I would imagine that a majority of Christians are anti-abortion.
There is a significant difference.
Can you provide proof otherwise?

Zulu, that would be correct, but what I find interesting about this thread is that some people think the views of Christians are somewhat lesser than their own, or should be lesser than than their own in the eyes of the government also.

eveie

find it funny that no matter what i say its never taken at face value, her name is Gianna Jenson i presume if you put her name into google youl find links. she gives takes all over the world. i have been to 2 of her confrences, also martin luther kings niece had i think 2 abortions, she also has 3 children and she also gives talks on the matter, she was in ireland last year

ChocolateSauce

Zulu wrote: »

I don't know if anyone has a soul. I'm agnostic, but that's neither here nor there.
Can you not comprehend that non-religious and anti-abortion aren't mutually exclusive?

When it comes to matters of opinion, nothing is mutually exclusive. You say you don't know if it has a soul, but you're still willing not only to bet that it does, but that it matters on a grand cosmic scale if that soul is destroyed? But this is why I haven't debated whether abortion is right or wrong, I've only stated it is wrong for one person to decide for another. When it is wrong is another matter entirely.

No body has to admit that. I would imagine that a majority of Christians are anti-abortion.
There is a significant difference.
Can you provide proof otherwise?
Another point we'll disagree on.[/quote]

You're right, I can't provide proof. But if you dispute it, please say so.

As for my views on absolute democracy, you say you disagree with me now, in the abortion context, but I bet you'd agree with me in other contexts. If you lived in a society of people the majority of whom you disagreed with on most important issues, would you still support absolute democracy if they tried to force you to do or not do things which you regarded as your exclusive competence? Thanks for quoting out of context too.

jakkass wrote: »

If I want to steal, well... because I need a bit of cash who do you think you are to tell me why not?

If I want to murder, well... because someone is annoying me, who do you think you are to tell me why not?

You really do have the most childish logic, don't you? If I thought you were joking I'd ignore you, but for your own benefit I'll reply. It is wrong to steal and murder because you are hurting someone. Assisted suicide is the opposite; you are saving someone from suffering, with their explicit consent.

No one asks to me murdered or to be robbed, but if someone who is unable to kill themselves due to infirmity asks to be killed, it is assisted suicide. It is their body, their life, their choice, not yours or anybody elses.

eveie

there are also a number of books which have accounts of people who have worked in abortion clinics and what they've witnessed and how it has affected them, they were once pro-choice and now strongly oppossed to abortions. i cant think of the names of the books off hand but im sure il find out

eveie

this thread is not abour assisted suicide, its a completely different subject although very important, in countries where it has been legalised it has been abused.
also it has been proven time and time again that the number of women opting for abortion has increased in countires where it has been legilised, as has child abuse

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote:

You really do have the most childish logic, don't you? If I thought you were joking I'd ignore you, but for your own benefit I'll reply. It is wrong to steal and murder because you are hurting someone. Assisted suicide is the opposite; you are saving someone from suffering, with their explicit consent.

That was actually me that said that and it's a highly valid point, and it was a bit of a joke, but there was a point to it.

Do the unborn give their explicit consent to abortions? Interesting question that people perhaps should think about.

Nevyn

I have never heard of anyone famous who is also an abortion survivor, that is why I asked.
Oh she is famous for being one and a pro life activist.

I think that at 7 months + weeks an abortion should not have been done, and for the most part they are not any more.

So really she is someone who was removed from her mother's womb pre term and then adopted, surely that should be worked on so that it is more of an option.

Shame her scared 17 year old bio parents didn't have better help/support.

So that is one person who is not famous and survive but is famous for surviving who else ?

eveie

i phrased that wrong i apologise i wasnt trying to suggest that any famous person is an abortion survior.
and NO theydal she wast just removed from her mothers womb, the mother opted for abortion but it failed, they wanted the end result to be the death of the child. your changing the words to somehow glamourise what actually happened her and what happens unborn children every day of the week
im not usre of the other names although i knw there are others, but to be honest one should be enough, will 4 or 5 make you change your mind???.....no of course not, i think one is too many.

Nevyn

I am curious and intrested and want to know that is why I am asking.
What is so wrong in wanting to know the facts that someone is refering too ?
Who are the 4 or 5 others, I would like to know and what were the titles of those books ?
I try and inform myself as much as possible about both sides of this issue.

eveie

theadydl i will try and get that information off hand im not sure to be honest.
obama has also said that he would vote in favour of aborted babies being left to die in bins instead of giving them the medical help they require. obviously not all babies that are aborted die straight away and are left to die, please someone tell me how that is ok?????

eveie

where does this all end? there are pro-choice advoctaes who blieve that parents should have the choice weather or not to kill their born child up to a certain age, you may think it ridiclous but they use the same excuse many use.......its a parasite, its completley dependant on me

Nevyn

eveie wrote: »

there are pro-choice advoctaes who blieve that parents should have the choice weather or not to kill their born child up to a certain age, you may think it ridiclous but they use the same excuse many use.......its a parasite, its completley dependant on me

In the last 17 year of being pro choice and a reproductive rights advocate and all the time spent researching and reading I have never heard of such a thing.

Please cite your sources for this.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

She made the claim the burden of proof is on her.

Jesus, that never stopped other posters!

Jakkass wrote: »

Zulu, that would be correct, but what I find interesting about this thread is that some people think the views of Christians are somewhat lesser than their own, or should be lesser than than their own in the eyes of the government also.

Well that's why I stopped posting on the Atheists/Agnostics forum. It's not something that is exclusive to boards.ie though. I find in todays society that there exists a level of arrogance and hypocrisy amongst "atheists" (and I use the word loosely as it appears to be a religion in it's own right for some) that is, frankly sickening.
I'm not religious, but, frankly, I couldn't care less if someone else was. Good for them.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

You say you don't know if it has a soul, but you're still willing not only to bet that it does,

When did I say that?
Do you want to invent some other opinions for me aswell?

Deciding how I feel, and telling me my opinions, might appear to you to strengthen your argument, but let me assure you it doesn't. It smacks of the arrogance you so strongly strive to obliterate.
Please stop.

but that it matters on a grand cosmic scale if that soul is destroyed?

Again, I never even suggested this. It's you own prejudice that has raised this. I told you, I'm not religious.

You're right, I can't provide proof. But if you dispute it, please say so.

I dispute it.

As for my views on absolute democracy, you say you disagree with me now, in the abortion context, but I bet you'd agree with me in other contexts.

What the hell are you banging on about? We are discussing abortion.

If you lived in a society of people the majority of whom you disagreed with on most important issues, would you still support absolute democracy if they tried to force you

Firstly I'd examine why my personal beliefs on most important issues contrasted with the rest of that society so much. Then, assuming I still felt the same, I'd lobby to see if there is anyone else of that opinion, and see about getting it changed; if that didn't work, I'd move.

You really do have the most childish logic, don't you? If I thought you were joking I'd ignore you, but for your own benefit I'll reply. It is wrong to steal and murder because you are hurting someone.

Your logic isn't much better, abortion is hurting someone else. Terminally.

No one asks to me murdered or to be robbed, but if someone who is unable to kill themselves due to infirmity asks to be killed, it is assisted suicide. It is their body, their life, their choice, not yours or anybody elses.

A baby doesn't ask to be aborted.

eveie

peter singer, he's a philospher, believes that parents have the right to kill a child up until a certain age, many people agree with him

Nevyn

ok have you read unsanctifying human life ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
He has argued and created arguement for both sides of the abortion issue.
He talks about and publishes challenging moral absoultism, thats what philosphers do.

Big difference between that and saying he is pro post birth baby murder.

philologos

eveie wrote: »

theadydl i will try and get that information off hand im not sure to be honest.
obama has also said that he would vote in favour of aborted babies being left to die in bins instead of giving them the medical help they require. obviously not all babies that are aborted die straight away and are left to die, please someone tell me how that is ok?????

Quite frankly it isn't.

Nevyn

The partial birth abortion bill which was passed in america has seen that this doesn't happen there any more.

CDfm

Jakkass wrote: »

That was actually me that said that and it's a highly valid point, and it was a bit of a joke, but there was a point to it.

Do the unborn give their explicit consent to abortions? Interesting question that people perhaps should think about.

I agree

F.A.

I find the hypocricy among pro life supporters something else, really. A few points that might make some of them think:

1) There is no such thing as a right to life. It is just a nice sounding phrase, but it is not applicable. If I am wrong and there is, please point me to a solicitor as I am sure there are plenty of terminally ill people out there who might like to take a case against, erm... yeah, give me the name of the culprit too while you're at it.

Come to think of it, I was under the impression that we are all going to die some time?

2) If abortion is wrong because you kill innocent life, how come it is generally accepted as okay to torture and kill animals for no reason other than wanting to eat them? I mean, surely animals are innocent, no? What's more, it has been established that humans do not *need* to eat meat in order to live a healthy life. So basically, millions of animals are tortured and slaughtered every day for us to have the pleasure of eating their meat. Compare the number of killed animals per day to that of abortions per year - puts things into a slightly different perspective, no?

3) If, after 2), you want to point out that there is a difference between humans and animals, then you must be of the belief that humans are somewhat more worthy of life than animals. How so? Because your religion says so? In other words, because you believe that? While that in itself is alright, it is not alright to inflict this view and the consequences you draw from it with regard to abortion on other people who simply do not share your belief.

4) It is fascinating to see some of you defend anti-abortion laws with the argument that you believe abortion to be the same as murder, so you feel it is justified to inflict these laws on everybody. What would you say if vegetarians forced their views on you, thus outlawing the killing of animals as it is, in their view, the same as murder? If you believe the argument to be invalid, I refer you back to point 3).

Oh, and one last point: I am quite sure that most women opting for abortion take that decision in no way near as lightly as people take theirs when they opt for a Big Mac or KFC for dinner.

kizzyr

eveie wrote: »

kizzyr i think her parents were brave in thier decision, they have one older child who has learned things that a person 4 times her age wouldnt know. she is very caring and understands the meaning of life and how life is so precious, her sister will not live for much longer, its surprising thats she's gotten this far.
to say that she has no quality of life is ridiclous, she has only the one body as we all do, we experience what we are able to, she has known no different so in her eyes she is equal. you know shes one of the happiest kids ive ever seen, she isnt spoilt or bought with money you give her a hug and her eyes light up, its the most beautiful thing ever and to say that her parents are selfish for giving her the chance to feel loved well......its selfish.
im very aware that a cleft palate is cosmetic, but also it goes hand in hand with some heart disorders. only a few years ago a vicor(female) brought to court the nhs because they were allowing abortions for children with cleft palates, she herself was born with a cleft palate. ive freinds who are deaf but there are children who are aborted EVERY DAY because of it, do you not realise that the smallest of disibilities is being used as a reason or a "conscience clearer" to abort a child???

I wasn't speaking specifically about your family friend when I spoke about children with mental and physical problems. I agree with you about the bravery of your friend's parents and all of the other people who parent children like her. It is a huge sacrifice but not one that everybody can do, is capable of doing, is financially able to do.......there is a whole host of reasons why someone would chose to terminate a pregnancy when they discover it is progressing with difficulties like those I spoke about. Believe it or not some do it with the best of intentions and think that they are better not to bring a person whose life will be a constant struggle into this world.

Re: foetuses with cleft palates being aborted every day.......I am going to need proof of that. It is all too easy to make such sweeping statements about abortions being carried out left right and centre all day every day.
Also I did say that I don't consider someone who is deaf or blind to be anything other than a person who can live and independent and full life. There is a massive difference between someone like that and someone who needs constant care for every day of their life.

Zulu

It is not "generally accepted as okay to torture" animals.

There are laws against it.


Poor, more effort required.

kizzyr

eveie wrote: »

this thread is not abour assisted suicide, its a completely different subject although very important, in countries where it has been legalised it has been abused.
also it has been proven time and time again that the number of women opting for abortion has increased in countires where it has been legilised, as has child abuse[/QUOTE]

Are your really saying that the legalisation of abortion has made more people abuse children? Source please.

philologos

F.A. wrote: »

1) There is no such thing as a right to life. It is just a nice sounding phrase, but it is not applicable. If I am wrong and there is, please point me to a solicitor as I am sure there are plenty of terminally ill people out there who might like to take a case against, erm... yeah, give me the name of the culprit too while you're at it.

You lost me here. That's totally repulsive that you can argue that people do not have a right to life given:

1) The UN Declaration of Human Rights - Article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

So, you are suggesting that humanity can just take someones life immediately, and they have no right to it at all. Grown and unborn both come into this context may I remind you.

F.A wrote: »

3) If, after 2), you want to point out that there is a difference between humans and animals, then you must be of the belief that humans are somewhat more worthy of life than animals. How so? Because your religion says so? In other words, because you believe that? While that in itself is alright, it is not alright to inflict this view and the consequences you draw from it with regard to abortion on other people who simply do not share your belief.

Humanity differs, in intelligence and in ability. They are an entirely different breed to any other animal I know. Humanity has a responsibility to be the stewards over all life though, and over the world that we have been given to live in.

philologos

kizzyr wrote: »

eveie wrote: »

this thread is not abour assisted suicide, its a completely different subject although very important, in countries where it has been legalised it has been abused.
also it has been proven time and time again that the number of women opting for abortion has increased in countires where it has been legilised, as has child abuse

Are your really saying that the legalisation of abortion has made more people abuse children? Source please.

That's clearly not the point which has been raised:

She says abortion has raised where it is legalised, as child abuse has increased in countries where it has been legalised. However I don't know any country where it has been legalised unless she means corporal punishment, which I would maintain is the parents right to use in disciplining their children.

F.A.

Zulu wrote: »

It is not "generally accepted as okay to torture" animals.

There are laws against it.


Poor, more effort required.

I suggest you do some research on KFC and how they treat chicken. Furthermore, would you kindly explain how you know (for example) that cattle do not feel tortured when they're being shipped/droven around for hours on end? Because it is legal to do so? If so, I can claim that abortion is not the same as killing as it is legal in many countries.

Also, interesting to see how you avoid the other points I made. Poor, more effort required.

F.A.

Jakkass wrote: »

You lost me here. That's totally repulsive that you can argue that people do not have a right to life given:

1) The UN Declaration of Human Rights - Article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

So, you are suggesting that humanity can just take someones life immediately, and they have no right to it at all. Grown and unborn both come into this context may I remind you.

You are missing the point entirely. We are ALL going to die. The phrase "right to life" is therefore nothing but phrase, albeit a nice sounding one.

Humanity differs, in intelligence and in ability. They are an entirely different breed to any other animal I know. Humanity has a responsibility to be the stewards over all life though, and over the world that we have been given to live in.

Humanity may differ in whatever way, but how exactly does that justify the killing of animals? Also, how exactly have we been "given" this world? I think you have just proven my point about religion as this is an argument that can only be made if you somehow believe in a God of some sort...

CDfm

F.A. wrote: »

I find the hypocricy among pro life supporters something else, really. A few points that might make some of them think:

1) There is no such thing as a right to life. It is just a nice sounding phrase, but it is not applicable. If I am wrong and there is, please point me to a solicitor as I am sure there are plenty of terminally ill people out there who might like to take a case against, erm... yeah, give me the name of the culprit too while you're at it.

Come to think of it, I was under the impression that we are all going to die some time?

2) If abortion is wrong because you kill innocent life, how come it is generally accepted as okay to torture and kill animals for no reason other than wanting to eat them? I mean, surely animals are innocent, no? What's more, it has been established that humans do not *need* to eat meat in order to live a healthy life. So basically, millions of animals are tortured and slaughtered every day for us to have the pleasure of eating their meat. Compare the number of killed animals per day to that of abortions per year - puts things into a slightly different perspective, no?

3) If, after 2), you want to point out that there is a difference between humans and animals, then you must be of the belief that humans are somewhat more worthy of life than animals. How so? Because your religion says so? In other words, because you believe that? While that in itself is alright, it is not alright to inflict this view and the consequences you draw from it with regard to abortion on other people who simply do not share your belief.

4) It is fascinating to see some of you defend anti-abortion laws with the argument that you believe abortion to be the same as murder, so you feel it is justified to inflict these laws on everybody. What would you say if vegetarians forced their views on you, thus outlawing the killing of animals as it is, in their view, the same as murder? If you believe the argument to be invalid, I refer you back to point 3).

Oh, and one last point: I am quite sure that most women opting for abortion take that decision in no way near as lightly as people take theirs when they opt for a Big Mac or KFC for dinner.

1. Thats your perogative most people want to live
2. We are not animals we are human and we dont eat other humans and I believe duck is delicous - I had it last night.Very tasty.
3. Humasn life is protected under our laws and we are on the top of the food chain and thus make the rules.
4. Because human life is accorded these rights under our constitution thems the breaks Tarzan



By the way I really hate the slogan -take your rosaries of my ovaries" and the like. It really trivialises a very serious subject and is demeaning to women.

Zulu

F.A. wrote: »

I suggest you do some research on KFC and how they treat chicken.

You can suggest all you like. The simple fact of the matter is that there are laws against animal abuse and cruelty in this country.
Thus, to claim that animal abuse is "generally accepted" is utter rubbish.

Furthermore, would you kindly explain how you know (for example) that cattle do not feel tortured when they're being shipped/droven around for hours on end?

Why should I? This thread is about abortion, not the welfare of animals in transit. You are dragging the thread off topic in a very poor attempt to create a straw-man.

If so, I can claim that abortion is not the same as killing as it is legal in many countries.

Abortion is illegal in this country.

0/10

CDfm

Im definately a KFC man- they serve chicken not children.