Abortion Discussion

aloyisious

David Quinn has an analysis piece in today's Irish Indo' about M.L.K and his Christian background, quoting it as the basis for Martin's thoughts on human rights. More than halfway through the piece, David mention's how Moral law and God's law (two separate law-basis sources) define bad law from good law and uses this to mention St Vincent's Hospital decision to obey the law of the land on abortions. David include's three paragraph's quoting Thomas Aquinas and M.L.K (merged by me for posting purposes);quote -- But if there is no God, then what law can possibly be higher than man-made law? If there is no law-giver above us, then we are the only law-givers -- This notion that the only law is the law of the land led the ostensibly Catholic St Vincent's hospital to say recently that it would implement the new abortion law because it always follows the law - In other words, for St Vincent's hospital there is no law higher than civil law. Martin Luther King would profoundly disagree with that. As would Abraham Lincoln - unquote. I find it interesting that David left out the workings of the human brain for working out what is moral and what is not moral, even though he listed two sources of good law, one divine and one human.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/if-there-is-no-god-no-lawgiver-then-why-should-we-be-equal-29538515.html

gaynorvader

aloyisious wrote: »

David Quinn has an analysis piece in today's Irish Indo' about M.L.K and his Christian background, quoting it as the basis for Martin's thoughts on human rights. More than halfway through the piece, David mention's how Moral law and God's law (two separate law-basis sources) define bad law from good law and uses this to mention St Vincent's Hospital decision to obey the law of the land on abortions. David include's three paragraph's quoting Thomas Aquinas and M.L.K (merged by me for posting purposes);quote -- But if there is no God, then what law can possibly be higher than man-made law? If there is no law-giver above us, then we are the only law-givers -- This notion that the only law is the law of the land led the ostensibly Catholic St Vincent's hospital to say recently that it would implement the new abortion law because it always follows the law - In other words, for St Vincent's hospital there is no law higher than civil law. Martin Luther King would profoundly disagree with that. As would Abraham Lincoln - unquote. I find it interesting that David left out the workings of the human brain for working out what is moral and what is not moral, even though he listed two sources of good law, one divine and one human.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/if-there-is-no-god-no-lawgiver-then-why-should-we-be-equal-29538515.html

I haven't read the article. However, I think you are mashing together state law and moral law. Law dictated by the state is often based on moral law, but more often than not is lead astray by the imperfections of man and the differing viewpoints we all hold.
As for God's law, even assuming that there is a God, you have to take into account that man may have bent or changed or omitted parts of the law, so it ends up being about as valid as any man-made law. Unfortunately there is no direct line to god, or even proof of what his laws might be. The closest we can get is the Bible, a book written by men, who had only heard the stories from other men. Now, you could argue that God had kept it absolutely correct, but that largely relies on what's written in there being correct in the first place, which leads to circular reasoning. I also think that there are many immoral laws in the Bible, which I would not consider following, so I doubt that it is purely divine will in writing.

Brian Shanahan

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I'm not sure if that is the question either though. The foetus is a member of the homo sapien species regardless and it has to be admitted that the foetus is alive in its own limited capacity i.e. living cells.

By the same meaurement the sausage I ate for breakfast this morning was probably alive. Most sausages you cook will still have some functional cells within them, carrying out the processes they were evolved to do, even though the pig itself is dead.

swampgas

aloyisious wrote: »

David Quinn has an analysis piece in today's Irish Indo' about M.L.K and his Christian background, quoting it as the basis for Martin's thoughts on human rights. More than halfway through the piece, David mention's how Moral law and God's law (two separate law-basis sources) define bad law from good law and uses this to mention St Vincent's Hospital decision to obey the law of the land on abortions. David include's three paragraph's quoting Thomas Aquinas and M.L.K (merged by me for posting purposes);quote -- But if there is no God, then what law can possibly be higher than man-made law? If there is no law-giver above us, then we are the only law-givers -- This notion that the only law is the law of the land led the ostensibly Catholic St Vincent's hospital to say recently that it would implement the new abortion law because it always follows the law - In other words, for St Vincent's hospital there is no law higher than civil law. Martin Luther King would profoundly disagree with that. As would Abraham Lincoln - unquote. I find it interesting that David left out the workings of the human brain for working out what is moral and what is not moral, even though he listed two sources of good law, one divine and one human.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/if-there-is-no-god-no-lawgiver-then-why-should-we-be-equal-29538515.html

Two points spring to mind:

(1) The Bible/God aka divine law was often used to justify slavery in the past.
(2) As David used his human brain to decide that divine law is better than human law, he is effectively saying that it is human judgement that actually determines which law we think should apply. This is a contradiction.

IMO it is the concept of individual human rights which is the real driver pushing against inequality and discrimination.

kylith

gaynorvader wrote: »

I also think that there are many immoral laws in the Bible, which I would not consider following, so I doubt that it is purely divine will in writing.

One of the main problems with the whole Biblical Law thing is that they want to use it when it suits them; i.e. using Leviticus to justify denying homosexuals rights, while at the same time ignoring the part of Leviticus about not shaving their beards, not wearing clothes of more than one fabric, not eschewing pork and shellfish. If you believe it's God's law then you have to follow it - all of it, not just pick the bits that suit your bigotry.

swampgas

aloyisious wrote: »

David Quinn has an analysis piece in today's Irish Indo' <...>
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/if-there-is-no-god-no-lawgiver-then-why-should-we-be-equal-29538515.html

Sweet divine Jesus, the comments ... :mad:

Turtwig

swampgas wrote: »

Sweet divine Jesus, the comments ... :mad:

See, I want to you ban you for posting that because you made me check out the comments. If I've understood Dave correctly the justification of it's a law from God is enough for me to do so in good conscience.

gaynorvader

Obliq wrote: »

It's all so subjective, isn't it? To me, with my wanted pregnancies, I really started to attribute feelings and emotions to them way earlier than they actually had any! I was anthropomorphising the foetus, if you like. Of course we naturally do that with humans, as we can expect and predict what would make another person happy or sad, comfortable or uncomfortable, but is that to say that when a foetus can respond to certain stimuli, that's enough to value that life as much as the full-grown woman carrying it, with all her experiences and learning?

I think our subjective feelings about potential are very important here - one person's foetus responds to stimuli and begins experiencing, therefore immediately is granted a right to it's potential, against another person's woman with unwanted pregnancy has a right to her potential, that she herself imagined. Not an easy one.

My gut feeling is "no", but my reasoned one is "yes". Otherwise you are saying that a 90 year old's life is more important than a 20 year old's. However, it is equal to the woman's right to decide what to do with her life and whether to carry it to term or not. She is responsible for that life, but should not be forced to leave it inside of her if she does not want it to be. I guess what is really needed is a better system set up for unwanted children at all stages of development.

Obliq wrote:

Neither have I seen a female butcher Perhaps, and it's just a perhaps, women are frequently more squeamish about killing than men? I'm assuming you're male, but you clearly don't have to justify killing chickens to yourself as thoroughly as I do! My fella won't do it though, unless it's absolutely necessary (animal in extreme pain, for instance) and he's usually much more pragmatic than me. I don't know. I have to go out now, but ta for the interesting conversation! More later.

I am indeed male, it's quite possibly a genetic predisposition to violence/killing as historically we would have been the ones hunting for food/killing predators/generally attacking one another. It's a similar reason why males tend to be better at mathematics whereas females tend to be better at languages.

Morag

aloyisious wrote: »

No protest means no movement, little protest means little movement, big protest means big movement. Time to get marching, folks

Saturday the 28th of September is gobal decriminalize abortion day and the second annual March for Choice is happening in Dublin.
Starting Point The Garden of Remembrance 2pm.

Brian Shanahan

Morag wrote: »

Saturday the 28th of September is gobal decriminalize abortion day and the second annual March for Choice is happening in Dublin.
Starting Point The Garden of Remembrance 2pm.

Ooh, I could make a weekend out of it, what with my birthday the next day.

kylith

swampgas wrote: »

Sweet divine Jesus, the comments ... :mad:

They always close them just as it gets fun.

Alderwould

Morag wrote: »

Saturday the 28th of September is gobal decriminalize abortion day and the second annual March for Choice is happening in Dublin.
Starting Point The Garden of Remembrance 2pm.

Is this an Amnesty international gig?

The Black Oil

After Tiller, the IFI will be showing this in late Sept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OePuH0M__1c

Morag

Alderwould wrote: »

Is this an Amnesty international gig?

Nope.

recourse

The Black Oil wrote: »

After Tiller, the IFI will be showing this in late Sept.

Violence is never ever the answer.. But neither is performing late term abortions. Just read the court transcripts of Kermit Gosnell.

Doctor Strange

recourse wrote: »

Violence is never ever the answer.. But neither is performing late term abortions. Just read the court transcripts of Kermit Gosnell.

recourse

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Confused.. The Guy performed later term abortions, Practically butchered the Children.. The Fact that he was convicted means he did it.

Late term abortion is clear brutality.

Delirium

recourse wrote: »

Confused.. The Guy performed later term abortions, Practically butchered the Children.. The Fact that he was convicted means he did it.

Late term abortion is clear brutality.

who on this thread was advocating late term abortions?

recourse

koth wrote: »

who on this thread was advocating late term abortions?

The video After Tiller posted about is defending doctors who perform late term abortions.

Bannasidhe

recourse wrote: »

The video After Tiller posted about is defending doctors who perform late term abortions.

Oh well, in that case we are all obviously screaming for late-term abortions. Just like all pro-lifers advocate imprisoning and sedating women who express a wish to have an abortion.

Delirium

recourse wrote: »

The video After Tiller posted about is defending doctors who perform late term abortions.

Thanks for the clarification.

Tiller was killed for carrying out late term abortions.

From what I can find online, Tiller was never convicted of carrying out any illegal abortions.

The trailer seems, to me, putting forward the opening for a renewed discussion on late-term abortions. That these abortions aren't so black and white as the pro-life would claim. I obviously haven't seen the film so am not in a position to comment on what is in the film regarding why late-term abortions should be allowed in some circumstances.

The critical reception of the film seems to indicate that the topic is more complex than most people can appreciate and that it needs to be properly discussed based on the reality of why some women find themselves requiring a late-term abortion.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that it's advocating late-term abortions. It's a documentary offering food for thought on the topic.

Brian Shanahan

recourse wrote: »

Violence is never ever the answer.. But neither is performing late term abortions. Just read the court transcripts of Kermit Gosnell.

To bring your argument to its logical conclusion:

Hitler was a practising catholic all his life. We should ban the catholic church and jail all catholics.

See where this kind of false equvialency leads you?

kylith

recourse wrote: »

Confused.. The Guy performed later term abortions, Practically butchered the Children.. The Fact that he was convicted means he did it.

Late term abortion is clear brutality.

He was convicted because he was carrying out late term partial birth abortions, which are illegal. Also because he had untrained assistants administering anaesthetic. Gosnell's actions have nothing to do with cases in which a late term abortion would be required due to a fatal foetal abnormality.

Trying to claim that Gosnell's actions are indicative of all abortion clinics is like claiming that Shipman is indicative of the behaviour of all geriatric doctors, or that the Westboro Baptists are indicative of the behaviour of Christians.

Gosnell was jailed because what he was doing was illegal. What he did has nothing to do with legitimate late term, or early term, abortions.

The Black Oil

The Irish Times apologises.

Turtwig

the case described in the article did not happen.

Well that was the quite the cock-up.

They probably should apologise to all the pregnant couples and individuals who had their pregnancies ended for one reason or another because in this republic some people are so quick to judge others and speculate who this "woman with twins" might have been.

Jack Kyle

I was reflecting on this earlier today and the various posts both for and against the punishment of women who have abortions. I'm obviously staunchly opposed to abortion in all but circumstances like the Savita case. I believe that the woman's life and the baby's life equal. With the caveat that I have pretty conservative views, how about this for a potential solution? If a woman elects to have an abortion, what if we were to make it compulsory for her to also have a hysterectomy? Not as extreme as incarcerating women and mothers, but make the loss of their ability to have children in the future the quid pro quo for what many like me view as the murder of a child. Extreme? Yes. Controversial? Absolutely. Effective? Perhaps. Salient point being that a woman who cares so little for life should perhaps lose the ability to create it. And before the left scream "troll", this is a legitimate and thought out proposal.

Corkfeen

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I was reflecting on this earlier today and the various posts both for and against the punishment of women who have abortions. I'm obviously staunchly opposed to abortion in all but circumstances like the Savita case. I believe that the woman's life and the baby's life equal. With the caveat that I have pretty conservative views, how about this for a potential solution? If a woman elects to have an abortion, what if we were to make it compulsory for her to also have a hysterectomy? Not as extreme as incarcerating women and mothers, but make the loss of their ability to have children in the future the quid pro quo for what many like me view as the murder of a child. Extreme? Yes. Controversial? Absolutely. Effective? Perhaps. Salient point being that a woman who cares so little for life should perhaps lose the ability to create it. And before the left scream "troll", this is a legitimate and thought out proposal.

Are you serious, you feel the state should prevent a woman from ever having children as a deterrent from having abortions? Congratulations, you have found a way to be even more dictatorial over women's bodies, it'd be like Ireland's equivalent of Sharia law. You seem to care very little for human life if you just want to punish women in unique ways.

Jack Kyle

Corkfeen wrote: »

Are you serious, you feel the state should prevent a woman from ever having children as a deterrent from having abortions? Congratulations, you have found a way to be even more dictatorial over women's bodies, it'd be like Ireland's equivalent of Sharia law. You seem to care very little for human life if you just want to punish women in unique ways.

It's a better and more considered punishment than just jailing them.

Turtwig

Why not gouge out their eyes?

swampgas

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I was reflecting on this earlier today and the various posts both for and against the punishment of women who have abortions. I'm obviously staunchly opposed to abortion in all but circumstances like the Savita case. I believe that the woman's life and the baby's life equal. With the caveat that I have pretty conservative views, how about this for a potential solution? If a woman elects to have an abortion, what if we were to make it compulsory for her to also have a hysterectomy? Not as extreme as incarcerating women and mothers, but make the loss of their ability to have children in the future the quid pro quo for what many like me view as the murder of a child. Extreme? Yes. Controversial? Absolutely. Effective? Perhaps. Salient point being that a woman who cares so little for life should perhaps lose the ability to create it. And before the left scream "troll", this is a legitimate and thought out proposal.

But few people would agree that abortion is "murder" the way you seem to think it is, so few people are going to agree to your (IMO) absolutely insane proposal.

It's like something Yahweh out of the old testament would dream up, and I don't mean that in a good way.