Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

solodeogloria

Good morning all,

Absolam - I'd also leave my church if it conducted same-sex marriages but I don't expect the State to repeal the law.

The difference in this case is that I also oppose abortion on secular human rights grounds .

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,.
solodeogloria

frag420

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

Pro-choice Christians probably do exist but I suspect that they are a minority on the liberal side of the spectrum. If my church came out in support of abortion I would have to leave it.

However we are talking about a secular matter of politics which is why I'm so bemused that it shows up in the Christianity forum. I've explained above why I oppose this for secular reasons but I would much much rather discuss my faith on this forum instead of hobby horse issues like abortion and gay marriage. I would hate for people to think Christianity was only about these things!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

On the first part in bold.......this confuses me somewhat. Surely your church is the representation of your God on earth and thus does his bidding(speaks his word) so if they were to change their stance on abortion then surely that was at Gods request? Or does God not speak through the church (I was led to believe this growing up)

If not then why go to a church? Why not have a 1-1 conversation with God instead of using a middleman like the church?

If you were to leave your church because they changed their stance on abortion but found that all other churches had similar stances or maybe a stance on a different divisive topic that you did not agree with, what would you do then? Would you remain church-less or perhaps start your own church?

Lastly I want to say that you are probably the only Christian/anti abortionist (there is probably others but your make a great effort here) on this thread with any sort of decency and respect when replying to others and for that I salute you!

robdonn

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

Pro-choice Christians probably do exist but I suspect that they are a minority on the liberal side of the spectrum.

Good morning solodeogloria!

Well if we look at Ireland, 87% of people believe that abortion should be available in situations beyond saving the life of the mother, and according to the 2011 census 84% of the population self-identify as Roman Catholic.

Although there is a debate in the A&A forum on how accurate the census figures are, a Gallup poll taken at around the same time showed that only about 47% consider themselves religious. Even at that more conservative figure, most Christians in Ireland appear to be pro-choice to an extent.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Good morning solodeogloria!
Well if we look at Ireland, 87% of people believe that abortion should be available in situations beyond saving the life of the mother, and according to the 2011 census 84% of the population self-identify as Roman Catholic.

The leap from the fact that the poll found that 87% of respondents are in favour of expanding access to abortion in Ireland, to 87% of people are Pro Choice would be a fairly Olympian one though. They didn't identify with the 'Pro Choice' position, nor did they indicate that they favoured any choice at all; only an expansion of access. In fact, only 38% were in favour of access as women choose, according to Richard Colwell, Managing Director of Red C Research and Marketing, who conducted the poll. Bit of a difference between 87% and 38% I would have said? Enough of a difference to make them a minority, as solodeogloria suggests, in fact. Before we even start adding the other Christians to the Roman Catholic numbers.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

The leap from the fact that the poll found that 87% of respondents are in favour of expanding access to abortion in Ireland, to 87% of people are Pro Choice would be a fairly Olympian one though. They didn't identify with the 'Pro Choice' position, nor did they indicate that they favoured any choice at all; only an expansion of access. In fact, only 38% were in favour of access as women choose, according to Richard Colwell, Managing Director of Red C Research and Marketing, who conducted the poll. Bit of a difference between 87% and 38% I would have said? Enough of a difference to make them a minority, as solodeogloria suggests, in fact. Before we even start adding the other Christians to the Roman Catholic numbers.

87% of people said that women should have the choice to terminate her pregnancy in cases of FFA, or are you interpreting that figure as no choice and that 87% of people believe women must have an abortion in a case of FFA?

Do not confuse, as many do, pro choice with pro abortion.

https://www.amnesty.ie/news/amnesty-internationalred-c-poll-reveals-irish-public-want-expanded-access-abortion-be-political

“The poll found that 87% of respondents are in favour of expanding access to abortion in Ireland. Of these, only 7% want expanded access limited to fatal foetal abnormalities. A very substantial 80% want access at least in cases where a woman’s life or health is at risk or where the pregnancy is as a result of rape or incest, including 38% of these in favour of access as women choose. Only 5% of people are opposed to abortion in all circumstances. Interestingly, just 1% of respondents declined to answer or had no opinion suggesting that the Irish public has strong views on the issue,” said Richard Colwell, Managing Director of Red C Research and Marketing.

That's fairly clear imo.
Take your own personal definition of 'Pro-Choice' and fit it in there.

If your 'Pro-Choice' is only considered as 'allowing the woman choose whenever wherever etc' then Absolam's 38% is valid.
If your 'Pro-Choice' is 'extending access beyond current form' then robdonn's 87% is there.
If your 'Pro-Choice' is 'there are circumstances that unfortunately we ought allow abortions in' then you have 95%.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

87% of people said that women should have the choice to terminate her pregnancy in cases of FFA, or are you interpreting that figure as no choice and that 87% of people believe women must have an abortion in a case of FFA? Do not confuse, as many do, pro choice with pro abortion.

Unlike yourself, I didn't interpret anything, I repeated verbatim what the MD of Red C Research said; "the poll found that 87% of respondents are in favour of expanding access to abortion in Ireland". Nothing confused at all.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Unlike yourself, I didn't interpret anything, I repeated verbatim what the MD of Red C Research said; "the poll found that 87% of respondents are in favour of expanding access to abortion in Ireland". Nothing confused at all.

So do 87% of the Irish population think that all pregnant women must have an abortion in cases of FFA?

(Let's do this census style)

[] Yes
[] No
[] Unable to answer question as doing so will concede an argument.

MrPudding

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all,

Absolam - I'd also leave my church if it conducted same-sex marriages but I don't expect the State to repeal the law.

The difference in this case is that I also oppose abortion on secular human rights grounds .

So you only oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds and you don't think gay people deserve secular human rights but a foetus does? Interesting.

MrP

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

So do 87% of the Irish population think that all pregnant women must have an abortion in cases of FFA?

(Let's do this census style)

[] Yes
[] No
[] Unable to answer question as doing so will concede an argument.

Let's do it another way;
Did Red C ask respondents if they think all pregnant women must have an abortion in cases of FFA?
[] Yes
[] No

Not that it seems at all relevant to your disputing solodeoglorias assertion that Pro-choice Christians are a minority but still...

fran17

MrPudding wrote: »

So you only oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds and you don't think gay people deserve secular human rights but a foetus does? Interesting.

MrP

Hold on a moment,you may be putting words in solodeogloria's mouth there.At least give him/her the chance to reply before acting on your interpretation of what the answer may or may not be?
Firstly,gay marriage is not a human right and this was confirmed by Europe's highest human rights court,which is about as secular as it gets.Secondly,of course a foetus is deserving of human rights because,well,its a human being.Its entitled to the most basic human right of all,the right to live.

ThatGeekGirl

Absolam wrote: »

Works for everything as far as I can tell, it's a philosophical catch-all. You may think he's not very good at his job, but really you're just not able to comprehend it. Sux to be human... though obviously we don't comprehend why.

Absolam wrote: »

God may very well be entirely responsible for everything ever, but we can't comprehend his reasoning, because of ineffability.

If this is the case then surely you cannot deem if opposing pro-choice is for or against god's will? If you just stated that you don't know what the grand plan is and have no idea as to what exactly god wants, how can you oppose something using god as a justification?

ABC101 wrote: »

@ cd07,

Perhaps it is to do with God respected humanities decision of free choice. If God was to reveal himself.... humanities freedom of choice would be annulled.

So god can respect humanities decision of free choice but you can't?

Let me get this right - you are saying that according to your standards, I as a woman should not have free choice over my own body with regards to reproduction yet you also believe that god respects my right to free choice?

MrPudding

fran17 wrote: »

Hold on a moment,you may be putting words in solodeogloria's mouth there.At least give him/her the chance to reply before acting on your interpretation of what the answer may or may not be?
Firstly,gay marriage is not a human right and this was confirmed by Europe's highest human rights court,which is about as secular as it gets.Secondly,of course a foetus is deserving of human rights because,well,its a human being.Its entitled to the most basic human right of all,the right to live.

First, I did put a question mark at the end of the sentence, so rather than putting words in solodeogloria's mouth I was asking for confirmation that my interpretation was correct.

Secondly, I think the more correct interpretation of Europe's highest court's view on the subject is that marriage is a human right, but the interpretation of what marriage is, or who can avail of it, is within the margin of appreciation of the individual states. By the way, this is the same court that also considers access to abortion to be a human right, so what ever way you look at it, if my interpretation is actually correct, then there is a little bit of conflict.

MrP

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Let's do it another way;
Did Red C ask respondents if they think all pregnant women must have an abortion in cases of FFA?
[] Yes
[] No

Not that it seems at all relevant to your disputing solodeoglorias assertion that Pro-choice Christians are a minority but still...

Damn, I forgot to put an "Other" option in there, but luckily you provided one anyway.

Red C asked if abortion services should be made available, not if they should be made mandatory, in cases of FFA. This would provide women with the choice of availing of an abortion legally in this situation, which 87% of people asked supported.

So that would be 87% support of the ability to choose (pro choice?) to avail of an abortion in a particular circumstance which is not life threatening to the pregnant woman.

solodeogloria

Good evening all!

Thanks for your questions they are all good and all fair.

frag420 wrote: »

On the first part in bold.......this confuses me somewhat. Surely your church is the representation of your God on earth and thus does his bidding(speaks his word) so if they were to change their stance on abortion then surely that was at Gods request? Or does God not speak through the church (I was led to believe this growing up)

If not then why go to a church? Why not have a 1-1 conversation with God instead of using a middleman like the church?

If you were to leave your church because they changed their stance on abortion but found that all other churches had similar stances or maybe a stance on a different divisive topic that you did not agree with, what would you do then? Would you remain church-less or perhaps start your own church?

Lastly I want to say that you are probably the only Christian/anti abortionist (there is probably others but your make a great effort here) on this thread with any sort of decency and respect when replying to others and for that I salute you!

I think Christians are the rescued people of God. We are brought together for Jesus for His good purposes by His death and resurrection. I think Protestants have a different view of church to the Catholics. The church is God's gathered people on earth. We are all children of one Father so in a sense we are a family. The church doesn't determine how the Bible is understood. Rather the Bible governs what we believe. In the event that a particular church deviates from what the Bible says it is a matter of concern. Is that church really working for my good if it doesn't endorse what God has already spoken in His word? If the particular church I was attending was no longer faithful to what God has spoken in the Bible then I feel like I would have to leave even if that would be hard and sad.

Why go to church? Two reasons and two passages from the Bible.

The first reason is because we need to be together because we can't be Christians on our own:

Hebrews 10:19-25 ESV wrote:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

The reason why we meet together is to help us to reach the Day when the Lord Jesus returns. We stir one another up to live the Christian life.

The second reason is because the church is where God's people are built up by speaking the truth in love to one another. It isn't just some old man at the front who is ministers, rather the preacher equips the congregation to serve others:

Ephesians 4:11-16 ESV wrote:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

In this passage Paul talks about how the church should function. The pastor equips the congregation for the work of ministry and in turn the congregation minister to one another. We are a family. In a similar way to a family we don't get to choose who our siblings are. The funny thing is that in the church there are all kinds of people I wouldn't choose to see normally in other circumstances, but we are the people who God has called to be together. Old, young, kids, adults, the whole lot of us called together by God. We hear the Bible read and explained by our pastor, but we're also making sure that we run the race together until the day of completion. I wouldn't choose to be anywhere else on a Sunday morning for that reason. Christianity is a corporate, family activity. Not a lone ranger pursuit.

As for if I had no other church to go to, I probably would have to start my own if there was no Biblically faithful church, but mercifully I'm at a wonderful church now and I wouldn't change anything for the world

I hope that answers your question. If it didn't please let me know.

MrPudding wrote: »

So you only oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds and you don't think gay people deserve secular human rights but a foetus does? Interesting.

MrP

Hi MrPudding,

This isn't what I meant. Perhaps my turn of phrase was a bit sloppy. I don't expect Christians to behave like non-Christians. I have different standards for what happens in church than what happens in the world. Let me explain with a table (more for my benefit than for yours) to distinguish what I mean with four topics. The first column is what I would accept in church, the second column is what I would accept in the secular world. I have different standards for Christians in the church of God, than I have for people in general in a secular society.

Topic | In church | In secular society
Advocating abortion-by-choice being legal | N (on religious grounds) | N (on secular grounds)
Advocating same sex marriage | N (on religious grounds) | Y
Advocating Islam | N (on religious grounds) | Y
Advocating putting money above Jesus | N (on religious grounds) | Y


N is for what I wouldn't accept, Y is for what I would accept.

robdonn wrote: »

Good morning solodeogloria!

Well if we look at Ireland, 87% of people believe that abortion should be available in situations beyond saving the life of the mother, and according to the 2011 census 84% of the population self-identify as Roman Catholic.

Although there is a debate in the A&A forum on how accurate the census figures are, a Gallup poll taken at around the same time showed that only about 47% consider themselves religious. Even at that more conservative figure, most Christians in Ireland appear to be pro-choice to an extent.

Hi robdonn, although some people have been very kind in defending my honour. I actually didn't think of this.

Firstly, I don't think supporting termination for foetal abnormality is actually pro-choice. I support this, but I don't support abortion-by-choice generally.

Secondly, I didn't even consider census figures, I was just considering on the basis of people I have met in churches over my last 9 years as a Christian. That was wrong and anecdotal but I didn't even think about it. However, I think there is room for discussion over what constitutes Christianity. I think by default I rule out a lot of nominalism, rightly or wrongly and as a result I would agree with honesty on the census as being crucially important.

I hope that answers the questions somewhat at least.

It's worth pointing out that I think lengthy discussions about abortion in the Christianity forum distract from the main purpose of discussing the Gospel and what we actually believe as Christians. There's a lot more to the Gospel of Jesus Christ than merely opposition to abortion or gay marriage and I would hope that we would discuss the whole lot. I get rather tired of discussions that pretty much presume that Christians are just the pro-life society and the anti-gay brigade. Neither are true in reality.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

MrPudding

solodeogloria wrote: »

Hi MrPudding,

This isn't what I meant. Perhaps my turn of phrase was a bit sloppy. I don't expect Christians to behave like non-Christians. I have different standards for what happens in church than what happens in the world. Let me explain with a table (more for my benefit than for yours) to distinguish what I mean with four topics. The first column is what I would accept in church, the second column is what I would accept in the secular world. I have different standards for Christians in the church of God, than I have for people in general in a secular society.

Topic | In church | In secular society
Advocating abortion-by-choice being legal | N (on religious grounds) | N (on secular grounds)
Advocating same sex marriage | N (on religious grounds) | Y
Advocating Islam | N (on religious grounds) | Y
Advocating putting money above Jesus | N (on religious grounds) | Y


N is for what I wouldn't accept, Y is for what I would accept.

Thank you, that is much clearer, tables rock. Personally, even as an anti-theist, I actually do respect your right to control what you do in your church. I am a strong supporter for marriage rights for same sex couples, but as strongly as I support that I also support a churches right not to be force to carry out marriages they think are not in keeping with their beliefs. I do, of course, hope that they will come to see the correctness (in societal terms) of not discriminating against people.

MrP

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Damn, I forgot to put an "Other" option in there, but luckily you provided one anyway.
Red C asked if abortion services should be made available, not if they should be made mandatory, in cases of FFA. This would provide women with the choice of availing of an abortion legally in this situation, which 87% of people asked supported.
So that would be 87% support of the ability to choose (pro choice?) to avail of an abortion in a particular circumstance which is not life threatening to the pregnant woman.

Did it need an other? What other option can there be; either they asked or they didn't. Well, more to the point, they didn't ask. So neither you nor I know whether 87% of the Irish population think that all pregnant women must have an abortion in cases of FFA, because they weren't asked.

If they had, we'd know the word must precludes a choice, so it wouldn't support the notion of a pro choice position anyway (never mind Pro Choice). So let's see, what did Red C say about 'choice'? Oh yes... "38% of these in favour of access as women choose".

So (just to get you back on track, again), when you disputed solodeoglorias assertion that a minority of Christians are Pro Choice, providing the 'statistic' that "87% of people said that women should have the choice to terminate her pregnancy in cases of FFA" it was totally made up. They didn't say that; 87% of respondents said they were in favour of expanding access to abortion in Ireland, and you extrapolated (made up) the rest to suit yourself.

Distracting yourself with whether I think " 87% of the Irish population think that all pregnant women must have an abortion in cases of FFA" might have derailed your chain of thought (or were you just trying to get someone else to make up statistics along with you?), so hopefully that gets you back to where you were

Absolam

ThatGeekGirl wrote: »

If this is the case then surely you cannot deem if opposing pro-choice is for or against god's will? If you just stated that you don't know what the grand plan is and have no idea as to what exactly god wants, how can you oppose something using god as a justification?

I think you can reasonably say that not knowing 'what the grand plan is' (which is a different thing from accepting ineffability) doesn't keep you from complying with instructions that God has given (like 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'), or from accepting that His will as expressed through His Church is that such a prohibition includes the unborn as well as the born, or even that it amounts to having no idea what exactly God wants. It obviously doesn't; lots of Christians accept that God is ineffable whilst being quite certain they know quite a lot about what exactly God wants.
Still, there has been a Mod warning about discussing ineffability on this thread, so it may not be a subject you ought to pursue (here).

Another point of view would be that if you cannot deem if opposing pro-choice is for or against god's will, then equally you cannot deem if opposing pro-life is for or against god's will, so you should act in accordance with your God given conscience and Trust in him.
Either way, you'd probably have to ask someone who holds those points of views how they reconcile the intricacies of them; not being someone who holds either I may not be the best person to ask.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Did it need an other?

So you could have answered my question without needing to rephrase and ask another, but chose not to? Thanks.

---

We can agree that the poll, in regards to the 87% we're discussing, did not specifically say that abortion in cases of FFA should be a choice or mandatory, but just that they are "in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland ... where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality".

So if this became the new law, and even if a pregnancy had to be assessed by 20 doctors and a priest and the pregnant woman had to beg on her knees before the go-ahead was given to allow the termination, it would still be a choice for the woman to make as the procedure could not be forced upon her. Presumably there would be no legal case for forcing this on her, people can refuse treatment and refusing an abortion which is not life threatening to the mother cannot be considered life-threatening to anyone else, so the procedure would ultimately be a choice.

So whether the 87% specifically stated it as choice or not, or if they even considered the optional aspect of the situation, they have shown support for a woman, within whatever restrictions the law may create, to choose to have an abortion without the coercion of a threat to her life.

So they are pro choice, in a limited capacity, but do not necessarily fall within the loosely defined Pro-Choice movement as Mya Nice Tuner pointed out. As someone who I believe (but may be mistaken) once went on for a while about the difference between someone referring to the church and the Church, I hope you can understand the difference in my meaning, and how I at least interpreted solodeoglorias's point.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

So you could have answered my question without needing to rephrase and ask another, but chose not to? Thanks.

Sure, if you had presented it correctly; as I did for you

robdonn wrote: »

We can agree that the poll, in regards to the 87% we're discussing, did not specifically say that abortion in cases of FFA should be a choice or mandatory, but just that they are "in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland ... where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality".

Actually no; but I would agree that according to the MD of Red C, the poll found that 87% of respondents are in favour of expanding access to abortion in Ireland.

robdonn wrote: »

So if this became the new law, and even if a pregnancy had to be assessed by 20 doctors and a priest and the pregnant woman had to beg on her knees before the go-ahead was given to allow the termination, it would still be a choice for the woman to make as the procedure could not be forced upon her. Presumably there would be no legal case for forcing this on her, people can refuse treatment and refusing an abortion which is not life threatening to the mother cannot be considered life-threatening to anyone else, so the procedure would ultimately be a choice.

That's all speculation dependent on your re-interpretation of the poll though. What's the point?

robdonn wrote: »

So whether the 87% specifically stated it as choice or not, or if they even considered the optional aspect of the situation, they have shown support for a woman, within whatever restrictions the law may create, to choose to have an abortion without the coercion of a threat to her life.

As far as I can see they have only shown support for expanding access to abortion in Ireland? The specifics you're proposing just aren't there....

robdonn wrote: »

So they are pro choice, in a limited capacity, but do not necessarily fall within the loosely defined Pro-Choice movement as Mya Nice Tuner pointed out. As someone who I believe (but may be mistaken) once went on for a while about the difference between someone referring to the church and the Church, I hope you can understand the difference in my meaning, and how I at least interpreted solodeoglorias's point.

They could be pro choice (or Pro Choice), depending on exactly how they favour expanding access abortion in Ireland; they haven't actually said though. They could not be.
I don't think I actually did go on for a while about the difference between someone referring to the church and the Church, but it probably doesn't make a difference. To this

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Actually no; but I would agree that according to the MD of Red C, the poll found that 87% of respondents are in favour of expanding access to abortion in Ireland.

"Actually no"? We are agreeing basically on the same thing now, as you have pointed out that my argument is really just an interpretation of the results and not necessarily in the results themselves, which I concede. But how have you come up with "Actually no"?

Q4. Which of the following best describes how you feel personally about abortion in Ireland?
Base; All Adults 18+; n=1,004 | %
I am opposed to allowing abortion in Ireland in all circumstances | 5
I am in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland only where the woman’s life is at risk | 7
I am in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland only where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality | 7
I am in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland only where woman’s life is at risk, where there is diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality, where the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, or where the woman’s health is at risk | 42
I am in favour of allowing all women access to abortion in Ireland as they choose | 38
I don’t know/have no opinion/Refuse to answer |1

When I suggest we agree that 87% of respondents are "in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland ... where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality", I am directly quoting the results. Are you disagreeing for the sake of it?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

"Actually no"? We are agreeing basically on the same thing now, as you have pointed out that my argument is really just an interpretation of the results and not necessarily in the results themselves, which I concede. But how have you come up with "Actually no"?

I'm saying actually no because you haven't presented anything that shows 87% of respondents are in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland ... where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality. Not least when the ... in the middle signifies something missing.

robdonn wrote: »

When I suggest we agree that 87% of respondents are "in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland ... where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality", I am directly quoting the results. Are you disagreeing for the sake of it?

But you're not? Were respondents asked "Do you favour allowing abortion in Ireland ... where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality", or are you creating a statistic by means of an elusive suspension point and combining other statistics in order to arrive at a conclusion you want?
If it helps, I will agree that 7% of respondents actually said they were in favour of abortion where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality, according to the statistics you just presented.


I have to say, I think this is a heck of a lot of effort to go to to prove that solodeogloria's suspicion that Pro-choice Christians probably do exist but are a minority on the liberal side of the spectrum is unfounded, particularly when she's already said she doesn't think supporting termination for foetal abnormality is actually pro-choice. But if it's keeping you entertained...

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

I'm saying actually no because you haven't presented anything that shows 87% of respondents are in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland ... where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality. Not least when the ... in the middle signifies something missing.


But you're not? Were respondents asked "Do you favour allowing abortion in Ireland ... where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality", or are you creating a statistic by means of an elusive suspension point and combining other statistics in order to arrive at a conclusion you want?
If it helps though, I will agree that 7% of respondents actually said they were in favour of abortion where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality, according to the statistics you just presented.

So if 5 people say they only (the omitted word) want pizza, and 5 people say they want pizza & chips, it's wrong to say that 10 people want pizza?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

So if 5 people say they only (the omitted word) want pizza, and 5 people say they want pizza & chips, it's wrong to say that 10 people want pizza?

Hard to say really. If the omitted word is canapes rather than pizza, then it would be wrong. When the words are omitted, how can you agree that it's right or wrong; the words that will allow you to make that judgement have been, as you say, omitted?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Hard to say really. If the omitted word is canapes rather than pizza, then it would be wrong. When the words are omitted, how can you agree that it's right or wrong; the words that will allow you to make that judgement have been, as you say, omitted?

Well the omitted word is not canapés, the omitted word was a restriction on one answer that did not apply to the others and also was not relevant to the statement being made in it's context.

So, after being enlightened to the mystery of the missing word, is your answer still "actually no"?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Well the omitted word is not canapés, the omitted word was a restriction on one answer that did not apply to the others and also was not relevant to the statement being made in it's context.

So, after being enlightened to the mystery of the missing word, is your answer still "actually no"?

Yep; I still haven't seen the answer you're saying was given and how many agreed with it.

But please don't think I'm not trying to meet you along the way here, the one answer to Q4 I saw which was close to what you've said was "I am in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland only where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality". I totally agree the table you posted shows 7% agreed to that answer.

Though I think those 7% probably wouldn't be people solodeogloria thinks are pro-choice, from what she's said.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Yep; I still haven't seen the answer you're saying was given and how many agreed with it.

But please don't think I'm not trying to meet you along the way here, the one answer to Q4 I saw which was close to what you've said was "I am in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland only where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality". I totally agree the table you posted shows 7% agreed to that answer.

Though I think those 7% probably wouldn't be people solodeogloria thinks are pro-choice, from what she's said.

You're in that mood today...

ThatGeekGirl

Absolam wrote: »

Still, there has been a Mod warning about discussing ineffability on this thread, so it may not be a subject you ought to pursue (here).

Another point of view would be that if you cannot deem if opposing pro-choice is for or against god's will, then equally you cannot deem if opposing pro-life is for or against god's will, so you should act in accordance with your God given conscience and Trust in him.
Either way, you'd probably have to ask someone who holds those points of views how they reconcile the intricacies of them; not being someone who holds either I may not be the best person to ask.

I understand the warning, I presumed that was about bringing up the subject matter in general so I brought it up in the direct context of what we are discussing.

I suppose my thoughts are that I as an individual know what I believe and agree with which is based on my own value system and a lot of reading, debating and reflecting on the issue. I do not mind what your stance is on the subject from the point of view of a discussion because I think that is healthy to hear all elements of a topic. However, I do mind when your stance on a subject can get forced on to my life regardless of what I think of the matter, and I mind even more when you have arrived at your stance not because you too have decided it of your own personal value system and experience, but have used a belief system which you yourself do not know the full answer of.

It all bottles down to this (for me): if you do not agree with abortion, don't ever have an abortion. if you do not agree with abortion and want to argue with me over my rights, at the very least do it from a non-religious stance because at least then we are both on the same footing to start with. This whole conversation I have been having with you about what god's plan is was actually me trying to enter into your space which I have now realised is wrong and I apologise. I don't believe god has a plan because I don't believe in a god the way you do.

Absolam

ThatGeekGirl wrote: »

I understand the warning, I presumed that was about bringing up the subject matter in general so I brought it up in the direct context of what we are discussing. I suppose my thoughts are that I as an individual know what I believe and agree with which is based on my own value system and a lot of reading, debating and reflecting on the issue. I do not mind what your stance is on the subject from the point of view of a discussion because I think that is healthy to hear all elements of a topic. However, I do mind when your stance on a subject can get forced on to my life regardless of what I think of the matter, and I mind even more when you have arrived at your stance not because you too have decided it of your own personal value system and experience, but have used a belief system which you yourself do not know the full answer of.

That all seems just a little bit too vague and meandering, but how about I just assure you that I'm not doing what I think you think I'm doing and move on?

ThatGeekGirl wrote: »

It all bottles down to this (for me): if you do not agree with abortion, don't ever have an abortion. if you do not agree with abortion and want to argue with me over my rights, at the very least do it from a non-religious stance because at least then we are both on the same footing to start with.

Hmm.
If you do not agree with drink driving, don't ever drink drive. That makes equally eminent sense, but it doesn't preclude us from legislating against drink driving, does it? Sure, it may be a personal choice whether someone does it, but the effect it has on others is why as a society we penalise it. In general, the same principle is why I agree with legislating against abortion; I'm not fundamentally opposed to people doing what they want with their bodies, far from it, but I am fundamentally opposed to that choice resulting in the death of another person, even one inside their body.

ThatGeekGirl wrote: »

if you do not agree with abortion and want to argue with me over my rights, at the very least do it from a non-religious stance because at least then we are both on the same footing to start with.

Actually, you're the one arguing with me over your rights; you don't have a right to have an abortion and you appear to want to have that right. And I'm not arguing that I'm not prepared to give you that right from a religious stance, I'm arguing it from a secular stance. We are on the same footing to start with (from a religious point of view), we just hold different positions. Though if you do want to argue about something and exclude religious footings from the argument, I sincerely suggest a religious forum is not the place to do it. At least not if you want posters to accede to your wish; you're just getting lucky with me

ThatGeekGirl wrote: »

This whole conversation I have been having with you about what god's plan is was actually me trying to enter into your space which I have now realised is wrong and I apologise. I don't believe god has a plan because I don't believe in a god the way you do.

Actually, it's you assuming that I think god has a plan, and that I believe in a god in a different way to how I do. You didn't establish any of that; you assumed.

frag420

Just came across this......


Russian women who decide to sell their babies instead of having an abortion will receive $3,700 under a proposed new law.
Officials are hoping the measure, which was put forward by a MP for the country's nationalist party, will boost the country's birth rate and give children 'a chance to live'.

Those of you who are anti choice/abortion, what are your thoughts? Would you be happy if the Irish government were to implement something similar?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3530351/Russian-women-decide-against-having-abortion-SELL-babies-state-3-700-proposed-new-law.html