Keep abortion out of Ireland

neemish

"Again morality is a private matter"(SD)


No, morality is certainly NOT a private matter. The OED defines morality as
"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour"
So if I privately decide that driving down the right hand side of the road in Ireland is fine, does that make it ok? No, because my decision impacts on everyone else using that road.

What if I privately decide that all people from Galway should be eliminated one by one. Does that make it ok?

We share a common morality. What that's based on is up to each community/society, but there are rules we have to hold in common if we are to survive living with each other.

And as a republic, we have decided that abortion shall not be allowed. That was the outcome of not one, but two public referenda.

qrrgprgua

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

If Ireland would do the decent about Syria, sending troops to fight the Americans and the Wahabis, the USA would turn around and simply expel all the illegal Irish there which would cause chaos- it was because of this that the US was able to turn Shannon into one of their bases.

Didn't want to de-rail the topic.. Just quoting the example.. Like Bosnia. The right thing is to protect innocent life. That the world stands by meeting around tables to discuss options is not helping. Ireland alone can't do much.. but that does not mean we should sit on the fence.

StudentDad

neemish wrote: »

"Again morality is a private matter"(SD)


No, morality is certainly NOT a private matter. The OED defines morality as
"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour"
So if I privately decide that driving down the right hand side of the road in Ireland is fine, does that make it ok? No, because my decision impacts on everyone else using that road.

What if I privately decide that all people from Galway should be eliminated one by one. Does that make it ok?

We share a common morality. What that's based on is up to each community/society, but there are rules we have to hold in common if we are to survive living with each other.

And as a republic, we have decided that abortion shall not be allowed. That was the outcome of not one, but two public referenda.

What you have said there is nearly correct. There is a difference between what is determined to be right and wrong - by society as a whole - through its elected representatives in Parliament and private morality espoused by private organisations which are separate from the state and are unaccountable to the electorate and whose views have not been agreed on by society as a whole. This is what I mean by legislating for the citizens of the state and not the views of an unelected religious bloc.

SD

equivariant

StudentDad wrote: »

...whose views have not been agreed on by society as a whole....

SD

actually in the matter of abortion the views of the RCC have been democratically endorsed by the electorate

lmaopml

equivariant wrote: »

actually in the matter of abortion the views of the RCC have been democratically endorsed by the electorate

This is true...and not necessarily by all Roman Catholics either, because it's an issue that is not necessarily 'religious' in nature. That's too popular.

Many Atheists are very uncomfortable with abortion too. That's the truth.

StudentDad

equivariant wrote: »

actually in the matter of abortion the views of the RCC have been democratically endorsed by the electorate

Yes in 2002 we had a referendum which was defeated - a referendum which would have further restricted the rights of people in the republic http://struggle.ws/wsm/news/2002/refvictoryMARCH.html

A referendum that the RCC wanted passed but the electorate said no. Since the X case successive govts. have refused to legislate on the matter and we have the added problem of an obsolete constitution that no longer reflects the country that we are.

SD

philologos

StudentDad wrote: »

What you have said there is nearly correct. There is a difference between what is determined to be right and wrong - by society as a whole - through its elected representatives in Parliament and private morality espoused by private organisations which are separate from the state and are unaccountable to the electorate and whose views have not been agreed on by society as a whole. This is what I mean by legislating for the citizens of the state and not the views of an unelected religious bloc.

SD

I don't believe right and wrong is a matter of opinion, rather it is simply what is real and what is genuinely just. Therefore I can't condone injustice and I won't.

It's not a "private matter". You're just saying that you can say what you like about anything, but everyone else has to shut up if you don't agree with them.

That's rather childish isn't it?

StudentDad

philologos wrote: »

StudentDad wrote: »

What you have said there is nearly correct. There is a difference between what is determined to be right and wrong - by society as a whole - through its elected representatives in Parliament and private morality espoused by private organisations which are separate from the state and are unaccountable to the electorate and whose views have not been agreed on by society as a whole. This is what I mean by legislating for the citizens of the state and not the views of an unelected religious bloc.

SD

I don't believe right and wrong is a matter of opinion, rather it is simply what is real and what is genuinely just. Therefore I can't condone injustice and I won't.

It's not a "private matter". You're just saying that you can say what you like about anything, but everyone else has to shut up if you don't agree with them.

That's rather childish isn't it?

Childish? No. What religious groups fail to realise is that they are private organisations who do not have the right to impose their beliefs on private citizens of the State. However 'just' or 'right' the religious stance may be, the individual citizen has the right to live his life free from the interference of religious pressure groups.

Irish society is maturing slowly, to the point where slavish devotion to an unelected, unaccountable body such as the RCC and any other denomination for that matter is a thing of the past.

Living your life according to the tenets of a faith is one thing. Trying to impose those beliefs on private citizens of the State is something else entirely. The actions of another individual which have no bearing on your own life are none of your business.

SD

28064212

equivariant wrote: »

actually in the matter of abortion the views of the RCC have been democratically endorsed by the electorate

neemish wrote: »

And as a republic, we have decided that abortion shall not be allowed. That was the outcome of not one, but two public referenda.

What? There have been two referendums on abortion (and a Supreme Court ruling), and the RCC have been on the losing side every time

PDN

StudentDad wrote: »

The actions of another individual which have no bearing on your own life are none of your business.

Yet you seem to think that it is your business whether other people should be permitted to have abortions or not.

This inconsistency has now been pointed out to you on a number of occasions.

FullblownRose

I don't think it's anyone's business but the woman's when she chooses to become a mother, whether it's for the first time or if she already has children. As if women should never be allowed to set a limit on how much nurturing they feel able to provide. Surely women have a right to choose whether they want to bring a life into the world, with all the responsibility it entails, or not ? The idea that any of us have a right to tell someone they must go ahead and become a mother seems disgusting to me. And I am speaking as a mother, and a very proud one too.

FullblownRose

..People always have had them and always will.

StudentDad

PDN wrote: »

Yet you seem to think that it is your business whether other people should be permitted to have abortions or not.

This inconsistency has now been pointed out to you on a number of occasions.

I am not being inconsistent. You keep saying that. It just doesn't make it true. I don't think denying a medical procedure to a woman who wants it on religious grounds is acceptable in a modern society.

If you want to apply your religious beliefs to your life that's your choice.

SD

qrrgprgua

FullblownRose wrote: »

I don't think it's anyone's business but the woman's when she chooses to become a mother, whether it's for the first time or if she already has children. As if women should never be allowed to set a limit on how much nurturing they feel able to provide. Surely women have a right to choose whether they want to bring a life into the world, with all the responsibility it entails, or not ? The idea that any of us have a right to tell someone they must go ahead and become a mother seems disgusting to me. And I am speaking as a mother, and a very proud one too.

Absolutely... its nobody's right to tell a women she should have children. Its her decision.


However when a women is pregnant, she is pregnant with a Child. That Child must be respected. And its everyone's responsibility to protect human life.

qrrgprgua

StudentDad wrote: »

I am not being inconsistent. You keep saying that. It just doesn't make it true. I don't think denying a medical procedure to a woman who wants it on religious grounds is acceptable in a modern society.

If you want to apply your religious beliefs to your life that's your choice.

SD

Respect for human life goes above and beyond religion. It goes way beyond Christianity. Even the Hippocratic Oath recognises the humanity of the unborn.

You want to tie objection to abortion with our faith. You deny the obvious empirical reality of human life.

Pro Abortion advocates try to reduce the unborn child to cells.. esp pregnancies under 13 weeks. In the US they found when a women saw her child before going for an abortion many changed they mind.

The debate here in this Christian forum maybe underpined by our Christian views (after all over 90% if population in the last census is Christian in Ireland). But the respect for the Child is not a Christian value.. Its a Human value. What abortion has done is reduce the value of life to that of a law in a country. Many countries have different laws.. Any law that targets intentionally the unborn is immoral.

StudentDad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Respect for human life goes above and beyond religion. It goes way beyond Christianity. Even the Hippocratic Oath recognises the humanity of the unborn.

You want to tie objection to abortion with our faith. You deny the obvious empirical reality of human life.

Pro Abortion advocates try to reduce the unborn child to cells.. esp pregnancies under 13 weeks. In the US they found when a women saw her child before going for an abortion many changed they mind.

The debate here in this Christian forum maybe underpined by our Christian views (after all over 90% if population in the last census is Christian in Ireland). But the respect for the Child is not a Christian value.. Its a Human value. What abortion has done is reduce the value of life to that of a law in a country. Many countries have different laws.. Any law that targets intentionally the unborn is immoral.

That is your opinion - based in religion - nobody is reducing the value of human life. When a child is born it is accorded the full protection of the law. When a foetus passes 14 weeks in utero it is given the full protection of the law in most jurisdicitions.

However, not everyone holds your view. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.

SD

philologos

StudentDad wrote: »

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Respect for human life goes above and beyond religion. It goes way beyond Christianity. Even the Hippocratic Oath recognises the humanity of the unborn.

You want to tie objection to abortion with our faith. You deny the obvious empirical reality of human life.

Pro Abortion advocates try to reduce the unborn child to cells.. esp pregnancies under 13 weeks. In the US they found when a women saw her child before going for an abortion many changed they mind.

The debate here in this Christian forum maybe underpined by our Christian views (after all over 90% if population in the last census is Christian in Ireland). But the respect for the Child is not a Christian value.. Its a Human value. What abortion has done is reduce the value of life to that of a law in a country. Many countries have different laws.. Any law that targets intentionally the unborn is immoral.

That is your opinion - based in religion - nobody is reducing the value of human life. When a child is born it is accorded the full protection of the law. When a foetus passes 14 weeks in utero it is given the full protection of the law in most jurisdicitions.

However, not everyone holds your view. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.

SD

Yet you've not realised that a democracy means all people have a say even pro-lifers. It seems like you want Government to be dictatorial pro-abortion-by-choicers.

That's not democracy. Its a childish intolerance of democracy when it doesn't suit you.

StudentDad

philologos wrote: »

Yet you've not realised that a democracy means all people have a say even pro-lifers. It seems like you want Government to be dictatorial pro-abortion-by-choicers.

That's not democracy. Its a childish intolerance of democracy when it doesn't suit you.

The last referendum to restrict abortion in Ireland on foot of the X case was rejected by the electorate.

This has nothing to do with childishness. Just a desire for un-elected, unaccountable religious interference to be removed from the legislative process.

Just because you disagree with a particular procedure does not give you the right to deny it to a citizen of the state, purely on religious grounds.

SD

qrrgprgua

StudentDad wrote: »

The last referendum to restrict abortion in Ireland on foot of the X case was rejected by the electorate.

This has nothing to do with childishness. Just a desire for un-elected, unaccountable religious interference to be removed from the legislative process.

Just because you disagree with a particular procedure does not give you the right to deny it to a citizen of the state, purely on religious grounds.

SD

its not denied on religious grounds.. Its denied on Democratic grounds.

Accept the will of the people. who rejected it twice.

Abortion is not a Religious argument its a human one.

StudentDad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

its not denied on religious grounds.. Its denied on Democratic grounds.

Accept the will of the people. who rejected it twice.

Abortion is not a Religious argument its a human one.

Incorrect - on foot of the X Case the govt. put a referendum to the people to essentially reverse the ruling of the Supreme Court and to prevent abortion in any circumstance. The electorate rejected that amendment.

Since then successive govt's have refused to legislate for abortion despite the ruling in the X case and the subsequent C case.

Not only do we need to legislate in this matter, we need to overhaul our constitution which is outmoded and no longer reflects modern Ireland.

SD

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Accept the will of the people. who rejected it twice.

You may want to read up on them. Both elections were losses for the Anti-Abortion groups who were trying to implement stricter rules.

FullblownRose

The will of the people? I don't accept that anyone voting for comfort and through ignorance and often religious pressure can control others to that extent. I don't see anyone taking responsibility for the children they might 'save' once they are born, either. The pro choice argument is also based on humanitarian grounds, although it mightn't seem like it to some people.

spacecookie555

People just need to mind their own imo. Instead of sticking your nose into everyone elses lives how bout you stick it back into your own and better yourself instead. The fact is you CANT change or control peoples free will, you never will so get over it.

As the saying goes God give me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the knowledge to know the difference between the two.

PDN

spacecookie555 wrote: »

People just need to mind their own imo. Instead of sticking your nose into everyone elses lives how bout you stick it back into your own and better yourself instead. The fact is you CANT change or control peoples free will, you never will so get over it.

As the saying goes God give me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the knowledge to know the difference between the two.

So, if people choose to kill other people, you can't change their free will and should just mind your own business and let them get on with it?

philologos

StudentDad: the 1992 X Case ruling wasn't about abortion by choice but abortions where there was a risk to a mothers life. The 2002 Referendum was on this topic. It wasn't for legalising abortion as a matter of choice.

FullblownRose

Unfair comparison.

PDN

FullblownRose wrote: »

Unfair comparison.

It's not an unfair comparison. It demonstrates that repeatedly saying "mind your own business" is no substitute for presenting a logical argument.

A great many people find the idea of killing an unborn child to be morally abhorrent. Telling them to "mind their own business" won't cut it.

spacecookie555

PDN wrote: »

spacecookie555 wrote: »

People just need to mind their own imo. Instead of sticking your nose into everyone elses lives how bout you stick it back into your own and better yourself instead. The fact is you CANT change or control peoples free will, you never will so get over it.

As the saying goes God give me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the knowledge to know the difference between the two.

So, if people choose to kill other people, you can't change their free will and should just mind your own business and let them get on with it?

I dont see it as murder thats just my opinion. Would you call a horse breeder a murderer because he had to do an abortion because the horse was having twins? Probably not because it would save the horses life. Theres enough unwanted children in the world, children hungry, homeless, being abused - even in ireland, we should worry more about the children that do exist than those who do not imo.

PDN

spacecookie555 wrote: »

I dont see it as murder thats just my opinion. Would you call a horse breeder a murderer because he had to do an abortion because the horse was having twins? Probably not because it would save the horses life.

Let's drop that red herring for a start. We both know that, in countries which permit abortions, genuine life-saving procedures constitute an incredibly tiny percentage of the abortions that occur.

Theres enough unwanted children in the world, children hungry, homeless, being abused - even in ireland, we should worry more about the children that do exist than those who do not imo.

So you think killing unborn children is going to better the lives of children who are currently going hungry and being abused?

Don't you think it might be more effective to challenge and confront the selfish attitudes that produce many abortions and also so much suffering for children?

spacecookie555

PDN wrote: »

spacecookie555 wrote: »

I dont see it as murder thats just my opinion. Would you call a horse breeder a murderer because he had to do an abortion because the horse was having twins? Probably not because it would save the horses life.

Let's drop that red herring for a start. We both know that, in countries which permit abortions, genuine life-saving procedures constitute an incredibly tiny percentage of the abortions that occur.

Theres enough unwanted children in the world, children hungry, homeless, being abused - even in ireland, we should worry more about the children that do exist than those who do not imo.

So you think killing unborn children is going to better the lives of children who are currently going hungry and being abused?

Don't you think it might be more effective to challenge and confront the selfish attitudes that produce many abortions and also so much suffering for children?

I am neither pro life or pro abortion I am pro choice. Its a choice that should be left to the individual imo. I respect your opinion on this and I get where youre coming from but I think forcing someone to have a child they dont want is abhorrent and is going to lead to more neglect, abuse and overall more suffering children.

I know a girl who had an abortion because she was on the breadline and was a victim of severe domestic abuse at the time, she was cut off from family members and had no one really to turn to. She hadnt the strength to leave that relationship at the time and the reason for her abortion was because she would never subject a child to that misery. She did it to save the child any future suffering. I asked her about adoption and she didnt see it as an option because she wouldnt have had the strength to give it away had she held it and the child would have suffered unimaginably as a result.

She is now out of that relationship thankfully but she torments herself daily over her choice. Now she does not deserve anymore pain or abuse imo, imagine something bad you did in your life that you torment yourself over and imagine if complete strangers would abuse you because you made a mistake, its sounds crazy because it is. SHE had to make that decision and SHES the one who has to live with it, NOBODY ELSE but HER.

PDN

spacecookie555 wrote: »

SHE had to make that decision and SHES the one who has to live with it, NOBODY ELSE but HER.

And that does not make the action right.

I know of a woman who suffered post-partum depression and killed her baby and her toddler too. Do you see that I could make the exact same kind of arguments that you and others are making here?

a) Look how much she suffered.
b) She has to live with the consequences of her actions, nobody else but her.
c) Nobody else has the right to make that decision for her.
d) Just because people's religious views lead them to think that it is wrong to kill babies and toddlers, they have no right to enforce their religious views on others.
e) It's nobody's business but hers.

But that doesn't mean that we should change the law to allow people to kill babies and toddlers. And that indicates that the arguments being repeatedly used by the pro-abortion lobby in this thread are pretty bankrupt.

StudentDad

philologos wrote: »

StudentDad: the 1992 X Case ruling wasn't about abortion by choice but abortions where there was a risk to a mothers life. The 2002 Referendum was on this topic. It wasn't for legalising abortion as a matter of choice.

No it was for something worse. It was an attempt to completely ban abortion and erase the X Case ruling. The Supreme Court is still waiting for clarification on this matter through primary legislation.

SD

StudentDad

PDN wrote: »

It's not an unfair comparison. It demonstrates that repeatedly saying "mind your own business" is no substitute for presenting a logical argument.

A great many people find the idea of killing an unborn child to be morally abhorrent. Telling them to "mind their own business" won't cut it.

You are using emotive language that does not fully describe the situation. Just because you think it is unacceptable to abort a pregnancy at any point does not mean everyone else does. For you to impose your belief on others is horrific. Again, as much as you don't like it. What a woman does with her own body is none of your business.

SD

spacecookie555

PDN wrote: »

spacecookie555 wrote: »

SHE had to make that decision and SHES the one who has to live with it, NOBODY ELSE but HER.

And that does not make the action right.

I know of a woman who suffered post-partum depression and killed her baby and her toddler too. Do you see that I could make the exact same kind of arguments that you and others are making here?

a) Look how much she suffered.
b) She has to live with the consequences of her actions, nobody else but her.
c) Nobody else has the right to make that decision for her.
d) Just because people's religious views lead them to think that it is wrong to kill babies and toddlers, they have no right to enforce their religious views on others.
e) It's nobody's business but hers.

But that doesn't mean that we should change the law to allow people to kill babies and toddlers. And that indicates that the arguments being repeatedly used by the pro-abortion lobby in this thread are pretty bankrupt.

No I do not at all see the similarities, post natel depression is a severe illness that needs to be treated with medication and other forms of treatment. In that case God bless that poor woman, I would see that as temporary insanity and no I wouldnt hold it against her, ive seen how that illness transforms even the most harmless people and yes SHE is the one who has to live with the fact that she killed her children.

You and I wont think about it every day but she will, you and I will forget it she wont, you and I will move on she never will. So no she does not deserve more abuse, she will destroy herself just fine without other peoples help.

Throwing the murder word around and thinking it will win every argument and silence every opposing opinion is just silly imo. The fact is you force mrs.x to have a child, are you going to take care of that child, are you going to feed it, protect it, educate it? No youre not, once that child is born you dont care any more because youve won your case and your beliefs havent been opposed. Now thats morally corrupt imo.

Btw Pdn please dont take offence thats not directed at you, just a general x case.

FullblownRose

To compare a pregnant woman who makes a choice to abort the pregnancy to a murdress is a very black and white and simplistic way of thinking.


Discomfort at the idea of a woman behaving non maternally doesn't give anyone a right to superceed her right to control her own reproduction. Women do not have to be constantly maternal with an endless capacity for bringing forth life. It might be convenient to imagine women who abort pregnancies are ''selfish'' and careless, despite statistics showing that contraception frequently fails, women fall pregnant after rape, etc.. women who have abortions come from different walks of life etc..and rarely if ever is it done for frivolous reasons- but if it was, perhaps that is not anyone's business, either. I don't know what is achieved by continuing to outlaw the procedure, as it continues to happen anyway, just in unsafe ways. Perhaps it makes pro-life people feel better, but it's just an illusion that there's no abortion in Ireland.


.

FullblownRose

Sorry..went of on a tangent..I think it's a matter of differentiating between what is public business and what's not..murder isn't comparable, it's cold blooded, with nasty motives, it affects a sentient human being who has been born and is living a life out in the world, it always negatively affects others too..

spacecookie555

FullblownRose wrote: »

To compare a pregnant woman who makes a choice to abort the pregnancy to a murdress is a very black and white and simplistic way of thinking.


Discomfort at the idea of a woman behaving non maternally doesn't give anyone a right to superceed her right to control her own reproduction. Women do not have to be constantly maternal with an endless capacity for bringing forth life. It might be convenient to imagine women who abort pregnancies are ''selfish'' and careless, despite statistics showing that contraception frequently fails, women fall pregnant after rape, etc.. women who have abortions come from different walks of life etc..and rarely if ever is it done for frivolous reasons- but if it was, perhaps that is not anyone's business, either. I don't know what is achieved by continuing to outlaw the procedure, as it continues to happen anyway, just in unsafe ways. Perhaps it makes pro-life people feel better, but it's just an illusion that there's no abortion in Ireland.


.

Fantastic post, I totally agree with everything youve said. As they say walk a mile in my shoes, if most prolifers who try and force their opinions on people were put in a situation of rape conception for example would they be still so staunch in their beliefs? I doubt it, and why? Because THEY would have to make that choice that would affect THEM for life, its not murder in that case its a matter of human self preservation to do with mental health combined with not wanting a child to endure the suffering that they would definately endure upon finding out theyre a product of rape.

Similar to what FullBlownRose said its not black and white, it never is.

qrrgprgua

FullblownRose wrote: »

To compare a pregnant woman who makes a choice to abort the pregnancy to a murdress is a very black and white and simplistic way of thinking.


Discomfort at the idea of a woman behaving non maternally doesn't give anyone a right to superceed her right to control her own reproduction. Women do not have to be constantly maternal with an endless capacity for bringing forth life. It might be convenient to imagine women who abort pregnancies are ''selfish'' and careless, despite statistics showing that contraception frequently fails, women fall pregnant after rape, etc.. women who have abortions come from different walks of life etc..and rarely if ever is it done for frivolous reasons- but if it was, perhaps that is not anyone's business, either. I don't know what is achieved by continuing to outlaw the procedure, as it continues to happen anyway, just in unsafe ways. Perhaps it makes pro-life people feel better, but it's just an illusion that there's no abortion in Ireland..

Isint that what the pill and Condoms are for... birth control.

So the pro-choice camp use abortion as a method of birth control?


Its not about making anyone "feel" better. Its about defending the rights of innocent. Your argument removes all rights from the unborn child.


Abortion has always happened.. Same as we have always had rape/ murder/ Abuse/ torture. Just because its happening it does not mean its right.


I have no objection to women controlling their reproduction. My objections are with what they have already produced.. the child that exists..

FullblownRose

Neither the pill nor condoms are fail safe. I doubt if abortion has ever been used as birth control, not in the way I think you mean anyway.

PDN

FullblownRose wrote: »

To compare a pregnant woman who makes a choice to abort the pregnancy to a murdress is a very black and white and simplistic way of thinking.

.

Not at all. Comparing them is a very simple way of exposing your simplistic and illogical arguments.
You have to come up with something a bit better than emotive stories or telling everyone who disagrees with you that it is none of their business - otherwise all you are doing is soapboxing.

FullblownRose

Again, I on't see how it's comparable to violent crime. As far as I'm aware, it's painless to the foetus if it's performe before 18 weeks gestation. The only possible element of cruelty I'm aware of is the denial of the future potential of the foetus.

FullblownRose

I'm sorry if I am being simplistic or illogical. I can only offer my own views I suppose.

qrrgprgua

FullblownRose wrote: »

Neither the pill nor condoms are fail safe. I doubt if abortion has ever been used as birth control, not in the way I think you mean anyway.

Well that's what you seem to be suggesting? That us pro-lifer's are controlling a womans reproduction by not allowing abortion.

We have to be responsibile with our choices in life.. Sex ... Society would have us believe is a quasi pastime that has no real consequences.. When we do get pregnant some want an easy way out..

Bottom line.. and this is a Thread in a Christian Forum. Life begins at conception and that unique life does not have any more or less value depending on what you or I think.. The Child that is conceived has a unique value in itself that has to be respected.

http://womenhurt.ie/

qrrgprgua

FullblownRose wrote: »

Again, I on't see how it's comparable to violent crime. As far as I'm aware, it's painless to the foetus if it's performe before 18 weeks gestation. The only possible element of cruelty I'm aware of is the denial of the future potential of the foetus.

There are many painless ways to kill people. Does it make it right to kill them?
Your argument denies all humanity to the Child and makes it subjective to what the mother thinks or what the country allows.

FullblownRose

Did I suggest that? Well, as I have reiterated already, not all unwanted pregnancies arise from unprotected sex. Women practising safe sex still become pregnant too. I don't like the element of blame and preaching there. I could post propaganda myself, but I'm only contributing my views. I know of that site already. I think it's title is a misnomer. Abortion hurts? Only in the physical sense, to the woman, or emotionally if she was coerced or unhappy about doing it.

Stereomaniac

I don't think that Rose is suggesting women use abortion as a form of contraception over condoms or the pill and other methods. I believe the point that was made is that the other methods do not always work, and that this can often lead to people choosing to terminate pregnancy. I know that this is what happened in my situation, and it was a very, very hard time. Also, thank you for posting up the link to Women Hurt. I am male, but still, it's helpful.

qrrgprgua

FullblownRose wrote: »

Did I suggest that? Well, as I have reiterated already, not all unwanted pregnancies arise from unprotected sex. Women practising safe sex still become pregnant too. I don't like the element of blame and preaching there. I could post propaganda myself, but I'm only contributing my views. I know of that site already. I think it's title is a misnomer. Abortion hurts? Only in the physical sense, to the woman, or emotionally if she was coerced or unhappy about doing it.

Your argument removes all responsibility for our acts. Offering abortion as a solution and denying the objective right of the unborn child. Sorry if we come across as preaching. There are many other threads on abortion on boards.ie... But in this forum did you expect Christians to start agreeing with you that killing a Child is right?

Life begins from conception and we respect it.. Its no dogma, its basic teaching that goes back before Christianity. Thou Shall not kill.

FullblownRose

Stereomaniac wrote: »

I don't think that Rose is suggesting women use abortion as a form of contraception over condoms or the pill and other methods. I believe the point that was made is that the other methods do not always work, and that this can often lead to people choosing to terminate pregnancy. I know that this is what happened in my situation, and it was a very, very hard time. Also, thank you for posting up the link to Women Hurt. I am male, but still, it's helpful.

Thank you. I really empathise, sorry to hear this x (excuse me for not considering people in your situation in my last comment please)

FullblownRose

My argument is that women take responsibility sometimes by having an abortion. This can mean they are protecting their existing family, themselves, etc, because of circumstances and the effect a new addition to the family or the woman's (or teenage girl's!) life would have. That is taking responsibility too. No, I don't expect Christians to agree with me r.e allowing abortion. I just don't like it when women are labeled a bit flippant and feckless when there are other numerous reasons for unplanned pregnancy. Yes, I am avocating the killing of an unborn baby in the very early stages of development, and I apologise because it's not something anyone really wants to have to stick up for but I feel it's a reality, and it'll continue, and it's neither completely morally wrong or right in my opinion but just something that has to be done sometimes- and yes, *sometimes*, just sometimes, the reasons for it are very flimsy and an easy way out.

StudentDad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Isint that what the pill and Condoms are for... birth control ... I have no objection to women controlling their reproduction ...

You have no problem with birth control? Doesn't exactly tally with church teaching.

SD