Abortion poll

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Thaedydal wrote: »

For the 3rd time Ultravid

What about ectopic pregnancys ?

I said that was covered! I said it in one of my last posts.

They would be included in the principal of double effect and would be morally permissible because the way of dealing with them is not abortion. You need to understand the reason for this.

Read this: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609uan.asp

Nevyn

Abortion should not be legalised

So you are saying that murdering an innocent unborn 'child' in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is acceptable to you ?

It is a different case then the removal of a cancerous womb, the proceedure in that case has the secondary result of ending the pregnancy were as the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is the direct action to destory the implanted embryo.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Thaedydal wrote: »

So you are saying that murdering an innocent unborn 'child' in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is acceptable to you ?

It is a different case then the removal of a cancerous womb, the proceedure in that case has the secondary result of ending the pregnancy were as the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is the direct action to destory the implanted embryo.

I never said that. Let me check and I will get back to you.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

"Question 6: I am an oncology nurse and was asked to give methotrexate for an ectopic pregnancy on another floor since only oncology nurses can give chemotherapeutic drugs. I believe the pregnancy was tubal. Needless to say I refused because I was unsure of the morality of it. I do not know the entire patient situation since the patient was on another floor. Could you please explain the morality of this act according to the church's teaching. I do not think the mother's life was in danger at this particular time. Thanks and God bless you. P.S. I work at a catholic hospital

Answer: There is more than one medical way of handling an ectopic pregnancy. The relevant moral question is whether the method or action is in fact a killing of the child. If so, that is a direct abortion, which is never permissible for any reason. "Direct means that the destruction of the child is willed as the end or the means to another end. Sometimes ectopic pregnancies are handled this way, killing the child but leaving the tube intact. Such an action is morally wrong.
However, if what is done is that the damaged portion of the tube is removed because of the threat it poses to the mother, that is not a direct abortion, even if the child dies. What is done is the same thing that would be done if the tube were damaged from some other cause. The mother is not saved by the death of the child but by the removal of the tube. Because the death of the child in this case is a side effect which is not intended, and because the saving of the mother's life is not brought about by the death of the child, such a removal of the damaged portion of the tube is morally permissible. The ethical rule that applies here is called the Principle of the Double Effect."

Source: priestsforlife.org

Now to be honest, this kind of scenario is provided for under existing Irish law. So really, why are we discussing it? I suggest, not to you personally Theadylal, that pro-abortion people bring up these things to try and trap pro-life people. The fact is, as I've said before, pro-abortion lobbyists appeal to 'hard cases' in order to try and work towards their real aim, which is abortion on demand for any reason they see fit. There is a major difference between a deliberate, procured abortion, which has the death of the child as its sole objective, and various, difficult, distressing, life-threatening complications and conditions, which necessitate some medical intervention which is morally licit and desires the well-being of both mother and child, if possible, but may result in the death of the unborn as an undesired side effect of the medical treatment offered to the mother. This is not a procured abortion.

It is most unfair to try and misuse these cases to justify what is really desired, and that is, abortion on demand in Ireland.

I have stated previously, the Irish Law as it currently stands protects both women and unborn children. Now why do you folks want to change it? Please answer me that.

There is an interesting discussion here for those who are interested:
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

and here:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=55211

and finally, here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609uan.asp

Now that is me done.

If you need any more information, ask a Catholic Priest!

K-9

Ultravid wrote: »

I'm thinking globally, not locally. When I say 'ours', I mean 'the West'. Ireland is a distinct exception in Europe, along with Malta I think. Just had to clarify that for you. Now I really am off!

As regards contraception, Catholic Teaching is summed up in the Catechism - searchable version here:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

MAP is an early abortion. It is against Catholic teaching also.

All the issues are explained here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/morality_ethics.asp

Ultravid wrote: »

Source: priestsforlife.org

Now to be honest, this kind of scenario is provided for under existing Irish law. So really, why are we discussing it? I suggest, not to you personally Theadylal, that pro-abortion people bring up these things to try and trap pro-life people. The fact is, as I've said before, pro-abortion lobbyists appeal to 'hard cases' in order to try and work towards their real aim, which is abortion on demand for any reason they see fit. There is a major difference between a deliberate, procured abortion, which has the death of the child as its sole objective, and various, difficult, distressing, life-threatening complications and conditions, which necessitate some medical intervention which is morally licit and desires the well-being of both mother and child, if possible, but may result in the death of the unborn as an undesired side effect of the medical treatment offered to the mother. This is not a procured abortion.

It is most unfair to try and misuse these cases to justify what is really desired, and that is, abortion on demand in Ireland.

I have stated previously, the Irish Law as it currently stands protects both women and unborn children. Now why do you folks want to change it? Please answer me that.

There is an interesting discussion here for those who are interested:
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

and here:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=55211

and finally, here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609uan.asp

Now that is me done.

If you need any more information, ask a Catholic Priest!

I'm interested in how you made the distinction between condoms and sperm with an embryo previously, yet the church bans the use of condoms because it makes procreation impossible!

The Church outlaws condoms because it may stop the creation of an embryo so do you agree with that?

Surely if MAP is a form of abortion, by extension condoms are also as they prevent the creation of life! Therefor any distinction between sperm and embryos is mute!

You say pro-abortionists want abortion on demand, what are people who accept abortion in limited circumstances like rape or a suicide risk?

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Seanies32 wrote: »

I'm interested in how you made the distinction between condoms and sperm with an embryo previously, yet the church bans the use of condoms because it makes procreation impossible!

I'm not sure I did say that. I think it was someone else.

Catholic Faith is a coherent whole. You must study the faith in it's entirety in order to understand it.This is too big a topic for one or two posts on an internet forum, or even a whole thread.

I can recommend two books right here, and I'll do it in small print as this is a little off-topic:

Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching. By Christopher West.
Available from Amazon and also Catholic booksellers such as Veritas should stock it.

Another book which explains much of the Church teaching on human sexuality can be found in Theology of the Body for Beginners, again by Christopher West, but based on the teaching of Pope John Paul II. Again Amazon have it and Veritas should too.

I promise you won't regret reading either of these two books.

It will all make perfect sense!

Otherwise, here is a good explanation on why contraception is not morally licit:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Hope this is helpful to you.

K-9

Ultravid wrote: »

I'm not sure I did say that. I think it was someone else.

Catholic Faith is a coherent whole. You must study the faith in it's entirety in order to understand it.This is too big a topic for one or two posts on an internet forum, or even a whole thread.

I can recommend two books right here, and I'll do it in small print as this is a little off-topic:




I promise you won't regret reading either of these two books.

It will all make perfect sense!

Otherwise, here is a good explanation on why contraception is not morally licit:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Hope this is helpful to you.

Sorry, edited my last post while you where posting! Sorry.

I'm trying to get at your logic here.

Previously you made a distinction between condoms, as they only stop sperm and the embryo being a living thing.

Personally, I think you should have stated that actually in your opinion condoms should not be allowed either as human life may occur without their use.

PS. Sorry should have quoted you, it was back around page 4 and 5 answering a question when human life is created.

Personally I think you are being consistent if you agree all contraception is wrong and also abortion. I mightn't agree but I can see the logic.

carlybabe1

Abortion should not be legalised

It is wrong to murder human children in the womb. It is wrong to murder human beings in the womb.

I think this speaks for itself...rational, competent, reasonable, ability to see both sides of the argument... NO CHANCE

They are pushing for abortion to suit their own evil ends.

Yes cause thier sole reason for existence is to advocate evil, and satan is laughing up his sleeve and rubbing his hands with glee at the fact he has the world to claim....

Admit it, this is about sex. The pro-aborts want all the sex they can get, and then when the woman 'unfortunately' yet inevitably gets pregnant, then sure as hell they don't want a child and they are not prepared to let this 'parasite' spoil their sex life. So let's kill the child. Let's murder our unborn child. Then we can have more sex. Another child? Let's abort that one too. Then we can have more sex, a different women this time.

Yes yes it is, in fact Im so sexually depraved I'd even consider meetig up with a reality constipated ****in idiot like yourself...I'd love to give you a good rogering of my boot up your anus, you might join reality then

Sex is designed to get us pregnant... women are hornier when they are most fertile I WONDER WHY ?

Im sure you'd know about that now :rolleyes:

Also women who have had abortions sometimes get pregnant more quickly as the body still wants to give birth but it hasn't. (I need to get my source for that one however so dont quote me just yet)

Yeah, good luck with lookin for that then... any health profession or indeed ODDLY ENOUGH any WOMAN (which you clearly are not) could tell you its because the kneck of the cervix is opened by approx 1 cm more from the first time you get pregnant regardless of whether you cary it to term or not...ditto when you have a baby, its recommended that you avoid intercourse for 8 wks unless on a reliable contraceptive...but I reckon you wouldnt know that, never having been near a woman..
and I wonder how long Id get banned for for telling you to **** off and cop on

K-9

Ultravid quoting the Catholic Church isn't helping your argument!

Can I post the Protestant view on contraception and say it is the truth?

tallaght01

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

I think it's fair enough for ultravid to quote the catholic church. It's his view that this is truth, and that's OK.

It should also be accepted that the catholic viewpoint is not a concern to many people.

But putting the point out there helps us to understand where other people are coming from.

Pulling up the likes of ectopic pregnancy is really distracting from the central issue. In a tubal ectopic, the baby won't survive. In many cases, if it's left, the mum won't survive. The type of operation performed shouldn't be based on religious views, as there's differing reasons for differing ways of dealing with ectopics. For example, removing portions of tubes will effect later fertility. Is the ectopoic ruptured? Is the woman stable enough for medical therpapy with methotrexate? Is she stable enough for "watch and wait" treatmnent. Ectopics are too dangerous to much around with.

I'm pro-life. And I'm catholic. I don't object to abortion on the basis of my catholicism. I object to it on the basis that I think it's wrong. Regardless of what the church says, if a women rocked up in front of me with a ruptured ectopic nad I was an obstetrician, I'd be opening her up and getting it out.

It's good to understand each other's views. But, ya know, hate the game, not the player :P

CDfm

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Its a cop out really.

Its deciding who lives or dies as if its your choice to make, stem cell harvesting,assisted suicide ,euthenasia where do you draw the line.

There are plenty of contraceptive methods and getting to England is reaally cheap.

Check this post out - its by a guy and 16 weeks her lost a baby boy which is what he calls the ...........

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055385002&highlight=miscarriage

Moonspell

Ultravid wrote: »

Pro-aborts wheel out the rape case disingenuously. They don't care about rape victims. What they care about is abortion on demand.
Killing a child conceived in rape doesn't unrape a woman, it makes her the mother of a dead child. Having the baby is a tremendously healing experience and a triumph of good over evil. A child conceived in rape has an equal, inalienable right to life. And yes, if I ever have a daughter, and heaven forbid she was raped, I would stand by this. Abortion, murder, is not the solution to rape.

Have you been raped? Do you know what is the feeling of a stranger (sometimes not even, but at least unwanted) touch in you body? So you would make you daughter have a child out of rape, to, regardless of what you think, most probably hate for life, and when one day the "poor" thing asks "why don't you love me?", she would just say, "sorry, life's tough"?..

There were so many things to be quoted here, this is but one!

I believe the woman should have the option of choice. I wouldn't impose my choice to others though. And though religion have some saying in the way the world turns, should not decide this matter, I believe. Or it would be the same as saying that Qur'an is right and women are pretty "nothing"...

Would I do it? Maybe not (not talking in a rape situation, endanger of either the mother or the "life" the mother carries). Which brings another thing..

Everyone has been talking about the mother's health here, what about the "child"? The laws in my country, actually state that it is also legal to have an abortion, up to 24 weeks, in face of proved incurable disease or malformation from the fetous.

K-9

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think it's fair enough for ultravid to quote the catholic church. It's his view that this is truth, and that's OK.

It should also be accepted that the catholic viewpoint is not a concern to many people.

But putting the point out there helps us to understand where other people are coming from.

Pulling up the likes of ectopic pregnancy is really distracting from the central issue. In a tubal ectopic, the baby won't survive. In many cases, if it's left, the mum won't survive. The type of operation performed shouldn't be based on religious views, as there's differing reasons for differing ways of dealing with ectopics. For example, removing portions of tubes will effect later fertility. Is the ectopoic ruptured? Is the woman stable enough for medical therpapy with methotrexate? Is she stable enough for "watch and wait" treatmnent. Ectopics are too dangerous to much around with.

I'm pro-life. And I'm catholic. I don't object to abortion on the basis of my catholicism. I object to it on the basis that I think it's wrong. Regardless of what the church says, if a women rocked up in front of me with a ruptured ectopic nad I was an obstetrician, I'd be opening her up and getting it out.

It's good to understand each other's views. But, ya know, hate the game, not the player :P

Indeed fair point.

Surely the Protestant view is equally acceptable?

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

Its a cop out really.

Its deciding who lives or dies as if its your choice to make, stem cell harvesting,assisted suicide ,euthenasia where do you draw the line.

There are plenty of contraceptive methods and getting to England is reaally cheap.

Check this post out - its by a guy and 16 weeks her lost a baby boy which is what he calls the ...........

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055385002&highlight=miscarriage

Good post on an emotive subject.

I suppose if the man is so important, what do you if a man wants an abortion and the mother doesn't.

Or what do you do if the man wants the pregnancy to continue and the mother doesn't?

If you are that sure abortion is wrong, is a court case to stop an abortion acceptable?

tallaght01

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed fair point.

Surely the Protestant view is equally acceptable?

I don't think religious views either way are really what we should be judging this issue on. But, I absoloutely agree that the protestant, jewish, muslim views etc are equally as valid as the catholic stance.

zenith

There won't be any more contributions to this thread from CarlyBabe as I've banned her. Keep civil, please.

CDfm

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Just putting it in perspective many people post who havent been thru miscarriage or pregnancy so its academic

Also where pregnancy abortion has been legalised its become almost like a contraceptive and that shouldnt be so.

There are so many contraception options available - but as a country we let ourselves down by not having them or proper sex education available.

There was no problem a few years back in disributing Iodine tablets to everyhouse in the country for a non-existant nucleur threat. How come its so difficult to tackle accidental pregnancies.

Its beyond the scope of my imagination.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Seanies32 wrote: »

Personally I think you are being consistent if you agree all contraception is wrong and also abortion. I mightn't agree but I can see the logic.

Yes indeed.

djpbarry

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

I think you will find that slavery was abolished because people came to realise that it was in fact wrong, not because they grew tired of it.

I think you will find that that is what I said.

Ultravid wrote: »

No, just as slavery was recognised as not good, so too will our society come to realise that abortion also is not good.

Why? Because you say so?

Ultravid wrote: »

Not realistic to those folks who have lust and sex as their raison d'etre.

Yeah, add “sex-crazed lunatics” to the list of terms to describe the Nazi pro-choice lobby :rolleyes:.

Ultravid wrote: »

Abortion is legal because many of those in power (in the UK for example) think it is right. Doesn't mean it is right!

Define “right”.

Ultravid wrote: »

A sperm is not a human being.

Neither is a zygote.

Ultravid wrote: »

The difference between contraception and abortion is this: contraception prevents the formation of new human life; abortion kills a life already formed.

Are the egg and the sperm not alive?

Publin wrote: »

In that context, I meant morally correct or just.

Which is entirely subjective, is it not? What I consider just, you may consider unjust and vice versa.

Publin wrote: »

Anyway, I would not share your opinion and would consider it an unborn child from the point of conception.

There’s no such thing as “the point of conception”.

Publin wrote: »

I'd be interested as to when you'd consider a human being as forming?

I honestly don’t know; it’s a grey area and will obviously vary from one pregnancy to another. I would consider abortion unacceptable if the foetus is sentient and is capable of perceiving pain. As far as I am aware, scientific evidence currently suggests that this is not possible prior to the 14th week of pregnancy.

Ultravid wrote: »

Meanwhile, you've just refuted the entire backbone of the pro-abortion lobby: abortion is the killing of another human being.

I’m not sure if you’re addressing me with this point? I’m also not sure what you’re point is? I also did not realise that I speak for the entire pro-abortion lobby :rolleyes:.

Phototoxin wrote: »

what has that to do with right or wrong ?

How else are we to define what is “right” and what is “wrong” if we are not to base those definitions on the beliefs of the population?

Phototoxin wrote: »

hmm lets see if MOST people think that the world is flat and the sun orbits it then it MUST be true mustn't it…

No; what is “right” and what is “true” are two very different concepts. The former is largely based on morals and beliefs, the latter is largely based on scientific evidence.

Ultravid wrote: »

Now you might say, ‘’Aha I am not Catholic so it doesn’t apply to me!’’ Not so. All men are under the Natural Law, and all must comply with it, Catholic or not!

Bollocks.

Thaedydal wrote: »

This is why we are seeing pro life groups desperately scrambling to reach 'young' people on internet sites like this one and to present their side of the argument.

Could you please point me in the direction of this “argument”; it appears to be drowning in a sea of pontification.

CDfm wrote: »

There was no problem a few years back in disributing Iodine tablets to everyhouse in the country for a non-existant nucleur threat. How come its so difficult to tackle accidental pregnancies.

Catholicism.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Seanies32 wrote: »

Ultravid quoting the Catholic Church isn't helping your argument!

Can I post the Protestant view on contraception and say it is the truth?

There are a wide range of views in the Protestant denominations. Some are for abortion and contraception. Some are against abortion but for contraception. Others are holding positions similar to the RCC. All Protestant denominations forbade contraception until the Lambeth Conference in the early 20th Century when the Anglicans said it would be ok in some cases... After that, almost all protestant denominations embraced contraception. There is a link between contraception and abortion. The mentality which permits one can hardly refuse the other.

Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.

Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract.

Read it here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed fair point.

Surely the Protestant view is equally acceptable?

I believe the only view that is acceptable is the one that is true.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't think religious views either way are really what we should be judging this issue on. But, I absoloutely agree that the protestant, jewish, muslim views etc are equally as valid as the catholic stance.

Truth is valid. If the other positions are wrong, then they can hardly be said to be of equal value, or indeed valid.

Abortion can be shown to be wrong using Natural Law. Our laws of our lands should comply with the Natural Law, not be in opposition to it.

djpbarry wrote: »

How else are we to define what is “right” and what is “wrong” if we are not to base those definitions on the beliefs of the population?
No; what is “right” and what is “true” are two very different concepts. The former is largely based on morals and beliefs, the latter is largely based on scientific evidence.

There is an objective reality and a truth about what is right and wrong. What is right and wrong is not decided by the population's beliefs. I can't believe you actually hold this belief. Can you not see where such a belief, and its application, will lead?

I would, like Tallaght, be against abortion even if I wasn't Catholic, because natural law illustrates why abortion is wrong.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

djpbarry wrote: »

I honestly don’t know; it’s a grey area and will obviously vary from one pregnancy to another. I would consider abortion unacceptable if the foetus is sentient and is capable of perceiving pain. As far as I am aware, scientific evidence currently suggests that this is not possible prior to the 14th week of pregnancy.

If you don't know, wouldn't it be a lot better to err on the side of caution?

I find it interesting that you use the criteria of whether or not the human being can perceive pain or not, rather than the fact that he/she is alive, as a basis on whether or not the action is right or wrong. The fact is, the human being is alive, and therefore to kill it would be wrong, regardless of whether or not pain is felt. If you kill me, you've killed me, regardless of whether it hurt. You could have used a hammer or a lethal injection; either way it would be wrong. Same with the unborn.

I don't think you realise, that you are actually applying a kind of absolutism of your very own, in using these criteria of whether or not the fetus can feel pain as a decider on the morality of the action, rather than the most obvious criteria which is that the human being is alive, is human, and is about to be kille din the womb. This is wrong, it is not about whether or not pain is experienced by the victim.

Mr Kreeft (I post this here because most people don't bother to read linked articles!):

This is a really good argument and one which I would like to see refuted.

13. The Argument from Skepticism

The most likely response to this will be the charge of dogmatism. How dare I pontificate with infallible certainty, and call all who disagree either mentally or morally challenged! All right, here is an argument even for the metaphysical skeptic, who would not even agree with my very first and simplest premise, that we really do know what some things really are, such as what an apple is. (It's only after you are pinned against the wall and have to justify something like abortion that you become a skeptic and deny such a self-evident principle.)
Roe used such skepticism to justify a pro-choice position. Since we don't know when human life begins, the argument went, we cannot impose restrictions. (Why it is more restrictive to give life than to take it, I cannot figure out.) So here is my refutation of Roe on its own premises, its skeptical premises: Suppose that not a single principle of this essay is true, beginning with the first one. Suppose that we do not even know what an apple is. Even then abortion is unjustifiable.
Let's assume not a dogmatic skepticism (which is self-contradictory) but a skeptical skepticism. Let us also assume that we do not know whether a fetus is a person or not. In objective fact, of course, either it is or it isn't (unless the Court has revoked the Law of Noncontradiction while we were on vacation), but in our subjective minds, we may not know what the fetus is in objective fact. We do know, however, that either it is or isn't by formal logic alone.
A second thing we know by formal logic alone is that either we do or do not know what a fetus is. Either there is "out there," in objective fact, independent of our minds, a human life, or there is not; and either there is knowledge in our minds of this objective fact, or there is not.
So, there are four possibilities:

1. The fetus is a person, and we know that;
2. The fetus is a person, but we don't know that;
3. The fetus isn't a person, but we don't know that;
4. The fetus isn't a person, and we know that.

What is abortion in each of these four cases?

In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.
In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter. It's like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you're not sure is fully evacuated. You're not sure there is a person there, but you're not sure there isn't either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn't know there was a person there, but you didn't know there wasn't either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.
In Case 3, the fetus isn't a person, but you don't know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren't. But you didn't care; you didn't take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.
Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism. So skepticism counts not for abortion but against it. Only if you are not a skeptic, only if you are a dogmatist, only if you are certain that there is no person in the fetus, no man in the coat, or no person in the building, may you abort, drive, or fumigate.
This undercuts even our weakest, least honest escape: to pretend that we don't even know what an apple is, just so we have an excuse for pleading that we don't know what an abortion is.

Source: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm

djpbarry

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

I believe the only view that is acceptable is the one that is true.

Truth is valid. If the other positions are wrong, then they can hardly be said to be of equal value, or indeed valid.

None of that makes any sense whatsoever. How can a belief be “true”? Who decides which positions are “wrong”? You?

Ultravid wrote: »

Abortion can be shown to be wrong using Natural Law.

Irrelevant.

Ultravid wrote: »

There is an objective reality and a truth about what is right and wrong.

What is “right” and what is “wrong” is subjective; it varies from person to person. There are “rights” and “wrongs” that many people will agree on and these will generally form the basis of laws. But there is a whole array of issues that people will disagree on, abortion being one of them.

Just because you repeat over and over that abortion is wrong and evil does not make it so. That is just your opinion, nothing more.

Ultravid wrote: »

If you don't know, wouldn't it be a lot better to err on the side of caution?

Eh, yes, that’s what I said.

Ultravid wrote: »

I find it interesting that you use the criteria of whether or not the human being can perceive pain or not, rather than the fact that he/she is alive, as a basis on whether or not the action is right or wrong.

Nice attempt at twisting my words; you’ll notice that I also used the word “sentient” but you chose to overlook that because it suited your argument to do so. Nice try.

Phototoxin

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Good post djpbarry.

I do agree as well that religion is not a great reason to justify being pro-life. If someone does not share your religous views then they will not agree with you. Logical arguments should be used.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

djpbarry wrote: »

What is “right” and what is “wrong” is subjective; it varies from person to person. There are “rights” and “wrongs” that many people will agree on and these will generally form the basis of laws. But there is a whole array of issues that people will disagree on, abortion being one of them.

Just because you repeat over and over that abortion is wrong and evil does not make it so. That is just your opinion, nothing more.

What you describe is moral relativity. Where just about anything goes. Actually, correct that: anything goes. To a moral relativist, nothing is wrong if he/she so chooses. What is right and wrong become quite meaningless terms and therefore all kinds of horrors can be inflicted on others, including those still in the womb.

There are absolute truths which are knowable. Moral law is universal across people in varying cultures, and is in fact rooted in the human condition. In the words of the late Pope John Paul, "in the depths of his heart there always remains a yearning for absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it."

Slaughtering the unborn in the womb is wrong. Fact. End of story.

This is my last post on these boards.

F.A.

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

What you describe is moral relativity. Where just about anything goes. Actually, correct that: anything goes. To a moral relativist, nothing is wrong if he/she so chooses. What is right and wrong become quite meaningless terms and therefore all kinds of horrors can be inflicted on others, including those still in the womb.

So when people challenge your belief or indeed have an entirely different belief, they are moral relativists? You really have a very, very narrow perspective. I suggest you gain some knowledge of moral outside the realms of religion before denouncing other people's morale and attempting to claim moral superiority. Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative may serve as a starting point.

Every woman has the right to choose to terminate a pregancy up to a certain point. Fact. End of story.

See, I can do that too. And I bet you are as convinced now of what I wrote in red and bold as I am of what you said in red and bold.

K-9

Ultravid wrote: »

There are a wide range of views in the Protestant denominations. Some are for abortion and contraception. Some are against abortion but for contraception. Others are holding positions similar to the RCC. All Protestant denominations forbade contraception until the Lambeth Conference in the early 20th Century when the Anglicans said it would be ok in some cases... After that, almost all protestant denominations embraced contraception. There is a link between contraception and abortion. The mentality which permits one can hardly refuse the other.



Read it here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp



I believe the only view that is acceptable is the one that is true.

That was going to be my next point, some Protestant beliefs have evolved over time. Indeed so as our states position on contraception. Unfortunately it would appear you would prefer if contraception was illegal which given the current social situation is madness!

Personally, when the subject of condoms was being debated I think you should have made your position clearer. It would have made your position even clearer!

Seanies32 wrote: »

Good post on an emotive subject.

I suppose if the man is so important, what do you if a man wants an abortion and the mother doesn't.

Or what do you do if the man wants the pregnancy to continue and the mother doesn't?

If you are that sure abortion is wrong, is a court case to stop an abortion acceptable?

I asked this of another poster, I'd be interested in your opinions.

djpbarry

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

What you describe is moral relativity.

No it isn't; it just doesn't fit with your moral absolutism, so you dismiss it as being the opposite extreme.

Ultravid wrote: »

Moral law is universal across people in varying cultures, and is in fact rooted in the human condition.

It is not "rooted in the human condition"; a child depends heavily on it's parents to educate it on what society considers right or wrong.

Ultravid wrote: »

Slaughtering the unborn in the womb is wrong. Fact. End of story. That is my opinion and so help me <insert deity of choice here> I'm going to beat you all to death with it.

Fixed that for you.

CDfm

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

F.A. wrote: »

So when people challenge your belief or indeed have an entirely different belief, they are moral relativists? You really have a very, very narrow perspective. I suggest you gain some knowledge of moral outside the realms of religion before denouncing other people's morale and attempting to claim moral superiority. Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative may serve as a starting point.

Every woman has the right to choose to terminate a pregancy up to a certain point. Fact. End of story.

See, I can do that too. And I bet you are as convinced now of what I wrote in red and bold as I am of what you said in red and bold.

Now she doesnt - thats just stupid - you might as well say every woman can kill a baby up to 12 months old.

Women already are treated very leniently for violence towards children and by the courts in general.

There is a shocking indifference that this is a human life thats being killed and not a goldfish ffs.

Are women so callous that they see nothing wrong here - it looks like that.

How much smarts does it take to use contraception? Are we saying women are stupid -because this seems to be very patronising?

Legal abortion is allowed in certain circumstances in Ireland.

Also - if someone does still want an abortion whats wrong with flying to the UK to have.

one.

Im against unrestricted abortion and prefer the current status quo.

Virgil°

Abortion should not be legalised

CDfm wrote: »

.....

Errrrr... i think he was just trying to illustrate how making a point isn't as simple as putting it in bold red and slapping "FACT!" on the end of it.
I could be wrong though.

F.A.

Abortion should not be legalised

Virgil° wrote: »

Errrrr... i think he was just trying to illustrate how making a point isn't as simple as putting it in bold red and slapping "FACT!" on the end of it.
I could be wrong though.

But you weren't.

CDfm

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Virgil° wrote: »

Errrrr... i think he was just trying to illustrate how making a point isn't as simple as putting it in bold red and slapping "FACT!" on the end of it.
I could be wrong though.

Virgil - Thanks I saw that - he quoted Kant didnt he.

So I applied Kant to my Rant.

That way -no ones going to argue -pure reason that is.

F.A.

Abortion should not be legalised

CDfm wrote: »

Virgil - Thanks I saw that - he quoted Kant didnt he.

So I applied Kant to my Rant.

That way -no ones going to argue -pure reason that is.

I really wish people would stop quoting out of context.

I did not quote Kant. I linked to a site about Kant's Categorical Imperative as a STARTING POINT FOR LEARNING ABOUT MORALS OUTSIDE OF RELIGIOUS FIELDS as I am fed up with religious folks shoving their understanding of ethics down everybody else's throat as if religion is the only basis there is for morale.

CDfm, it would really help if you read what was said and considered the context before jumping to conclusions.

Btw, he is a she.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

Now she doesnt - thats just stupid - you might as well say every woman can kill a baby up to 12 months old.

Women already are treated very leniently for violence towards children and by the courts in general.

There is a shocking indifference that this is a human life thats being killed and not a goldfish ffs.

Are women so callous that they see nothing wrong here - it looks like that.

How much smarts does it take to use contraception? Are we saying women are stupid -because this seems to be very patronising?

Legal abortion is allowed in certain circumstances in Ireland.

Also - if someone does still want an abortion whats wrong with flying to the UK to have.

one.

Im against unrestricted abortion and prefer the current status quo.

I think some women are for it, some aren't!

Similar to men really!

rainbow kirby

Abortion should be legalised up to 16 wks, and 20 wks in fatality circumstances

CDfm wrote: »

Also - if someone does still want an abortion whats wrong with flying to the UK to have one.

Irish solution to an Irish problem tbh. If someone wants an abortion, then they will do what it takes to get it - so why force them to fly abroad to get it?

thebman

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

I will ignore that comment, as it is off-topic and unfair and a cheap shot, a really cheap shot. There are bad eggs in every basket. The Church is no different. On the other hand, find me a Church Document which shows the Church condones child abuse. You can't as it doesn't exist. The Church teaches the truth about Life. The Church has apologised, most recently by Benedict XVI, for the sins of some in the Church. On the other hand, pro-abortionists seek to justify their evil acts. Again, may I draw you back to the discussion - the slaughter of the innocents in the womb.

Keep on topic guys and gals and be polite.

They apologised because they got found out. They were previously trying to cover it up for years.

Its not a cheap shot, its the truth.

Sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and yelling blah, blah, blah doesn't mean the church didn't try to cover up and protect those abusing children. They did and it is not only incredibly wrong for them to do it but hypocritical given what they preach IMO.

Also this is on topic when you starting quoting the church, debating their credibility is perfectly legitimate. In case you have not worked it out, I don't think they have any credibility.

Pro abortionists don't seek to justify evil acts because abortion isn't evil.

CDfm

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

F.A. wrote: »

CDfm, it would really help if you read what was said and considered the context before jumping to conclusions.

Btw, he is a she.

i really like that kant is brought into the equation and see the relevance.

Drico

CDfm wrote: »

i really like that kant is brought into the equation and see the relevance.

And I'm quasi-orgasmic that the bible, John Paul the second, and Beelzebub himself are brought into the equation. As for relevance? Oh ya, I'm seeing it, Man, I'm seeing it. :rolleyes:

Drico.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

brim4brim wrote: »

They apologised because they got found out. They were previously trying to cover it up for years.

Its not a cheap shot, its the truth.

Sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and yelling blah, blah, blah doesn't mean the church didn't try to cover up and protect those abusing children. They did and it is not only incredibly wrong for them to do it but hypocritical given what they preach IMO.

Pro abortionists don't seek to justify evil acts because abortion isn't evil.

I saw this and couldn't leave it unchallenged.

If you examine the facts, you will find that the vast majority of priestly abuse was carried out by priests with a distinctly homosexual taste, and they targeted adolescent boys. But nobody wants to talk about this, because homosexuality, that great new life choice, is the flavour of the month in the secular sphere. You won't hear the secular media calling this a homosexual abuse crisis. This is the truth of it. What they did was very wrong. The bishops who faffed around and mishandled the entire thing were wrong. Pope Benedict is the latest Pontiff to apologise for this disgrace. And yes it was a disgrace. But the root of the scandal was homosexuality.

Priest says scandal really about homosexuality, not pedophilia
The Rev. Charles Fiore:

"The problem is not clerical pedophilia," Fiore told WND, "but homosexuality." The distinction is important, Fiore noted, because most victims of Catholic clergy abuse are adolescents.

"Strictly speaking," Fiore stated, "pedophilia is the sexual molestation of a pre-pubescent child of either sex," but the overriding problem is the abuse of older children from 12 to 18. "More than 90 percent of the cases," Fiore observed, "involve the clerical molestation of teen-age young men."
In reporting clerical abuse, "the grand taboo in U.S. culture is to focus on homosexuality," Fiore stated.
"Pedophilia is done only by an aberrant few," but society "looks upon homosexuality as an alternative way of life," explained Fiore.

I didn't want to get into the contraception issue, nor did I want to get into the homosexual issue. But the fact is, all these things are related. Abortion is not an isolated issue, but one of several evils. But since you've brought up these other topics, I can respond as I have done. This is the truth and I understand it may be hard to hear it, but it is the truth.

Of course there will be sinners in the Church, and bad things will happen. However, the moral teaching of the Church remains firm, despite the sins of individual priests and bishops. Healthy men do not abuse children or young people. Good priests do not do this, and you will find that the statistics show that only a very small minority of priests have abused young people, and as I said, you will find most of them were adolescent boys, not children.

This abuse scandal has done tremendous harm to the Church, the Church being the Body of Christ and the People of God, both the faithful and the hierarchy, there is no doubt about that. I myself am very angry about what was done and how it was 'dealt with'. Does this diminish my faith? Not one jot. There are sinners in the Church, it is full of them. Myself included, I might add. But the Church will stand 'til the very end despite the best efforts of the powers of darkness, and we have the Word of God to assure us of that fact.

You can read more here about it:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/jun/020618a.html

But to use this to try and discredit the moral teaching of the Catholic Church is a cheap and low shot.

The Church teaches the sanctity of each human life from the moment of conception, which interestingly, is where we all began, each individual one of us. The Church (that includes me btw) defends the life of each human being and decries the slaughter of the unborn which is going on wholesale throughout the world.

There is an objective truth about this: either abortion is murder, or it is not. The stakes are very high. Which is it, because it can't be both?

I believe the truth will come out, because it always does. One day the truth about abortion will be acknowledged throughout the world.

K-9

Ultravid wrote: »

If you examine the facts, you will find that the vast majority of priestly abuse was carried out by priests with a distinctly homosexual taste, and they targeted adolescent boys.
But nobody wants to talk about this, because homosexuality, that great new life choice, is the flavour of the month in the secular sphere. You won't hear the secular media calling this a homosexual abuse crisis. This is the truth of it. What they did was very wrong. The bishops who faffed around and mishandled the entire thing were wrong. Pope Benedict is the latest Pontiff to apologise for this disgrace. And yes it was a disgrace. But the root of the scandal was homosexuality.

And? Does it matter if it was adolescent boys or young children?

I think it's more to do with people having sympathy for people who are abused, not a cover up for homosexuality!

It looks like your looking for a scapegoat and of course, homosexuality is very convenient for you.

Maybe if the Catholic Church had been more understanding and forgiving and less condemning of Homosexuality these men wouldn't have done what you say is true?

Phototoxin

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Seanies32 wrote: »

And? Does it matter if it was adolescent boys or young children?

yes it does as a paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to pre pubescent children. Therefore most of them would be gay rapists rather than paedophiles.

How does this relate to abortion ? why does religion even have to enter in to this discussion

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Seanies32 wrote: »

And? Does it matter if it was adolescent boys or young children?

I think it's more to do with people having sympathy for people who are abused, not a cover up for homosexuality!

It looks like your looking for a scapegoat and of course, homosexuality is very convenient for you.

Maybe if the Catholic Church had been more understanding and forgiving and less condemning of Homosexuality these men wouldn't have done what you say is true?

Yes it is true and yes it matters a great deal: these boys were abused by grown men who brought great shame and disgrace on the Holy Catholic Priesthood and had a good shot at ruining the lives of these boys with their gross and depraved actions, as well as damaging the faith of the laity, and the perception of the Church in the world.

zenith

Back on topic right now folks. Start another debate if you want to go down this track.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Well said Zenith. Enough with rabbit holes.

CDfm wrote: »

There is a shocking indifference that this is a human life thats being killed and not a goldfish ffs.

Are women so callous that they see nothing wrong here - it looks like that.

Im against unrestricted abortion and prefer the current status quo.

I agree. There is a shocking indifference, and a cold, calculated callousness towards the unborn. There is no humanity, no compassion, no feeling, no emotion, no love. Nothing.

I guess that is how they sleep at night. When you remove the last vestiges of your humanity, you can finally get a good nights sleep knowing what you've done or given your assent to.

But if you ask the abortion providers themselves, I am not so sure all of them are sleeping at night. These are testimonies from abortion providers, both abortion doctors, and nurses who assist at abortions:

''The doctors would remove the fetus while performing hysterotomies and then lay it on the table, where it would squirm until it died... They all had perfect forms and shapes. I couldn't take it. No nurse could.''

- Joyce Craig, Director of a Brooklyn clinic of Planned Parenthood, who assisted in abortions for two years then quit.

''I want the general public to know what the doctors know - that this is a person, this is a baby. That this is not some kind of blob of tissue.''

- Dr. Anthony Levantino during a conference in Chicago in 1989: Meet the Abortion Providers

''I got to where I couldn't stand to look at the little bodies anymore.''

- Dr. Beverly McMillan, when asked why she stopped performing abortions. Quoted in the Ex Abortionists: They have confronted reality: Washington Post, April 1, 1988, p.a21.

''I dismember the foetus - pull it apart limb from limb - and remove it piece by piece and two hours later I've forgotten them.''

- Abortionist, Professor Philip Bennett, who carried out England's first selective abortion where one twin was killed and the other allowed to live. Sunday Independent, 11/08/1996

''Population control is too important to be stopped by some right wing pro-life types. Take the new influx of Hispanic immigrants. Their lack of respect for democracy and social order is frightening. I hope I can do something to stem that tide; I'd set up a clinic in Mexico for free if I could... When a sullen black woman 17 or 18 can get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us, it's time to stop...''

- Abortionist Edward Alfred, San Deigo Union, California, USA who has become a millionaire 12 times over from the abortion industry.

''One night a lady delivered and I was called to come and see her because she was 'uncontrollable'. I went into the room and she was going to pieces; she was having a nervous breakdown, screaming and thrashing. The other patients were upset because this lady was screaming. I walked in, and here was this little saline abortion baby kicking. It had been born alive, and was kicking and moving for a little while before it died of those terrible burns, because the salt solution gets into the lungs and burns the lungs too. I'll tell you one thing about D&E. You never have to worry about a baby's being born alive. I won't describe D&E, other than to say that, as a doctor, you are sitting there tearing, and I mean tearing - you need a lot of strength to do it - arms and legs off of babies and putting them in a stack on top of the table.''

- Dr David Brewer, Abortionist.

More testimonies from those who carry out abortions and information can be found here: http://www.truthtv.org/

Wake up people! All the fancy talk, words, and intellectualism in the world can't hide the reality of abortion or talk it away. This is the reality about abortion. This is about human lives.

K-9

phototoxin wrote:

why does religion have to enter into this discussion

Agree, I think you quoted the wrong person. Maybe Ultravid may stop quoting the Catholic catechism now?

Ultravid wrote: »

Well said Zenith. Enough with rabbit holes.

Indeed, I don't know how homosexuality got into the debate!

Anyway, moving swiftly onwards!

Ultravid wrote:

I agree. There is a shocking indifference, and a cold, calculated callousness towards the unborn. There is no humanity, no compassion, no feeling, no emotion, no love. Nothing.

Are you sure? I thought a big part of the anti abortion argument was the effect abortion had on women after the event? If that's true surely they have some compassion, humanity, feeling etc.?

PS. Can you answer my question about taking a court case if the mother of your child wanted an abortion?

Also, what is your view of people who would accept abortion in cases like rape or risk of suicide?
Do they fall into the above category?

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Seanies32 wrote: »

Are you sure? I thought a big part of the anti abortion argument was the effect abortion had on women after the event? If that's true surely they have some compassion, humanity, feeling etc.?

PS. Can you answer my question about taking a court case if the mother of your child wanted an abortion?

Also, what is your view of people who would accept abortion in cases like rape or risk of suicide?
Do they fall into the above category?

Abortion kills unborn children and harms women in various ways, including psychologically and emotionally.

I don't quite get your comment. My comment was describing the inhuman outlook of so many of those who support abortion, and who have no feeling or compassion for the unborn child, seeing them as nothing more than dead goldfish. Pro-Life people have compassion and love for all human beings, including those women who have had abortions. There are a number of organisations involved in this work, such as Rachel's Vineyard*, who support and help women. Women indeed do have humanity and feelings, and they do suffer after abortion.

I don't know quite what you mean about the court case, perhaps more detail would help me understand what you mean. NI and Eire laws are similar so I don't see how that situation would arise. Nor do I see it's relevance to this discussion.

Abortion in the case of rape is no answer. Abortion does not unrape the woman, it simply makes her the mother of a dead baby. This is no solution. Rape is a great crime, and so too is abortion. While the rape is a crime she bears no responsibility for, the abortion is a crime for which she is culpable.

Suicide is a desperate and irrational action, and so too is abortion. Both involve the ending of a life. The solution to the suicide threat is not to provide abortion at the desperate request of a traumatised woman or her parents. The solution is proper care, support, and I might add, faith. A belief in God and a belief that good can come out of evil can give the woman the strength she needs to carry this cross. The fact is, a woman can have a baby conceived in rape. As hard as it may be to accept, by having the child, the woman can take back the power and control she lost from the attack, and may find healing in the arms of her child. There are documented examples of this, we just rarely, if ever, hear about it The child may otherwise be placed for adoption and there are many people here who are waiting to adopt but there are not enough children...





* http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/

K-9

Ultravid wrote: »

I agree. There is a shocking indifference, and a cold, calculated callousness towards the unborn. There is no humanity, no compassion, no feeling, no emotion, no love. Nothing.

I guess that is how they sleep at night. When you remove the last vestiges of your humanity, you can finally get a good nights sleep knowing what you've done or given your assent to.

Ultravid wrote: »

Abortion kills unborn children and harms women in various ways, including psychologically and emotionally.

I don't quite get your comment. My comment was describing the inhuman outlook of so many of those who support abortion, and who have no feeling or compassion for the unborn child, seeing them as nothing more than dead goldfish. Pro-Life people have compassion and love for all human beings, including those women who have had abortions.

Thanks. Your first post didn't appear very compassionate. In the first post I didn't see much compassion, maybe it's me?

I was getting the impression people who supported or had abortions had no feelings or sympathy for the unborn, I think now you've said many who support or have had abortions are now humans and aren't cold, indifferent, calculated etc.

ultravid wrote:

There are a number of organisations involved in this work, such as Rachel's Vineyard*, who support and help women. Women indeed do have humanity and feelings, and they do suffer after abortion.

Thanks, they suffer and have feelings before it too, or do you not agree?

ultravid wrote:

I don't know quite what you mean about the court case, perhaps more detail would help me understand what you mean. NI and Eire laws are similar so I don't see how that situation would arise. Nor do I see it's relevance to this discussion.

Simple really.If your wife/gf wanted an abortion and was going to England, what would you do? It's very relevant, people disagree on this subject as shown on this thread and in relationships!

ultravid wrote:

Abortion in the case of rape is no answer. Abortion does not unrape the woman, it simply makes her the mother of a dead baby. This is no solution. Rape is a great crime, and so too is abortion. While the rape is a crime she bears no responsibility for, the abortion is a crime for which she is culpable.

Thanks for your opinion. So how do you view a woman who has an abortion after a rape?

ultravid wrote:

Suicide is a desperate and irrational action, and so too is abortion. Both involve the ending of a life. The solution to the suicide threat is not to provide abortion at the desperate request of a traumatised woman or her parents. The solution is proper care, support, and I might add, faith. A belief in God and a belief that good can come out of evil can give the woman the strength she needs to carry this cross. The fact is, a woman can have a baby conceived in rape. As hard as it may be to accept, by having the child, the woman can take back the power and control she lost from the attack, and may find healing in the arms of her child. There are documented examples of this, we just rarely, if ever, hear about it The child may otherwise be placed for adoption and there are many people here who are waiting to adopt but there are not enough children...

What if the mother does not have your faith?

If your view causes a suicide and the death of the mother and unborn baby, are you responsible?

philologos

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed fair point.

Surely the Protestant view is equally acceptable?

The Christian view on abortions is by and large the same.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Seanies32 wrote: »

Thanks. Your first post didn't appear very compassionate. In the first post I didn't see much compassion, maybe it's me?

I was getting the impression people who supported or had abortions had no feelings or sympathy for the unborn, I think now you've said many who support or have had abortions are now humans and aren't cold, indifferent, calculated etc.

Which post of mine didn't seem compassionate? Many people who advocate, promote, and carry out abortions are cold, but many others too come to see what it really is. My selection of quotations from abortion providers themselves, shows the mix of reactions and attitudes, some cold and calculated, others with dawning horror at the reality of what they were engaged in.

What did you make of the quotations from the abortion providers? How did you feel about what they described?

Seanies32 wrote: »

Thanks, they suffer and have feelings before it too, or do you not agree?

Women experience a whole plethora of feelings at various stages and times.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Simple really.If your wife/gf wanted an abortion and was going to England, what would you do? It's very relevant, people disagree on this subject as shown on this thread and in relationships!

That wouldn't happen. I'd like to think I'd chosen my wife wisely and therefore that situation would not arise. If it were to arise, however, I would do all I could to save my unborn child.

Seanies32 wrote: »

So how do you view a woman who has an abortion after a rape?

It is a tragedy. The woman was a victim once, from the rape, now her unborn baby is a victim, and the woman a victim also, of the abortion. Abortion harms both mother and baby.

Seanies32 wrote: »

What if the mother does not have your faith?

Is this my wife we're talking about? :P

Seanies32 wrote: »

If your view causes a suicide and the death of the mother and unborn baby, are you responsible?

My position wouldn't 'cause' anything. If I say Timmy can't climb on top of Big Ben and throw smarties off it, and he commits suicide as a result of my prohibition against wrong-doing, is Timmy's suicide my fault?

F.A.

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

It is a tragedy. The woman was a victim once, from the rape, now her unborn baby is a victim, and the woman a victim also, of the abortion. Abortion harms both mother and baby.

Ultravid, please stop speaking on behalf of raped women as if you have spoken to each and every one of them. Your generalisations do not help anyone. Stop telling victims of rape who fall pregnant how they are supposed to feel. Only the victim knows how she feels, and like it or not, she may actually consider pregnancy as a continued violation to her body, so terminating it is very much a solution for her.

I would also like to point out that your view can be used by men who want to force women to have their child.

As for this:

The child may otherwise be placed for adoption and there are many people here who are waiting to adopt but there are not enough children...

With all due respect, there are more than enough unwanted children in orphanages worldwide. Ireland isn't on a planet of its own, you know. It would also help if you realised that even Irish orphanages aren't exactly empty, and given the Catholic Church's and Ireland's government's record with vulnerable children over the years, abandoning children to institutions isn't necessarily as feckless an act as you make it sound.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

F.A. wrote: »

Ultravid, please stop speaking on behalf of raped women as if you have spoken to each and every one of them. Your generalisations do not help anyone. Stop telling victims of rape who fall pregnant how they are supposed to feel. Only the victim knows how she feels, and like it or not, she may actually consider pregnancy as a continued violation to her body, so terminating it is very much a solution for her.

I would also like to point out that your view can be used by men who want to force women to have their child.

Feelings, whatever they are, do not change reality. The reality is, abortion is wrong, as is rape. Both are violent attacks on innocent victims.

Did you know, that your view, abortion as a solution to rape, can be used to conceal abuse, including incestuous sexual abuse, and actually allow it to continue, even after the abortion. Had you considered that?