Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

bee06

Given Russia's disregard for human life in other situations I would think this is less related to protection of unborn life and more to do with the government's attempts to impose further strictures on society.

FortySeven

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Surely if one is interested into how pro-life people oppose abortion they can look in the other two threads on the front page of the Christianity forum?

We've been through this topic so many times that one has to wonder if it is something of an obsession.

It is a very sad feature of this forum that we don't look and consider and focus on the Lord Jesus who we Christians claim to follow and who we believe and trust in.

I am pro-life on non-religious secular human rights grounds and arguably it is a secular political issue for the Politics forum.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Perhaps if you don't think this is an appropriate forum to discuss abortion then you should be bringing the issue to the original poster who lauded the news with great joy that abortion was to be banned for tens of millions of women?

Better start at the source than the minute it takes a tangent you happen to disagree with, don't you think?

ArnieSilvia

OP never mentioned massive protests in Poland. Abortion laws was only a project for consideration by parliament, brought by pro life crowd. This didn't go ahead AFAIK. If it did, it would throw the ruling party out of parliament.
While I can see that Poland becomes more "fundamentalist" I think that common sense will prevail as there was too much suffering of women due to abortion laws in the past. Don't forget that there is almost no support for single mothers, the situation is entirely different to Ireland. Over there it usually means poverty for mother and child.
In this context I feel that pro life people would be better off offering help to mothers rather than protesting and setting up draconian laws and leaving others to live with it.
Ask yourself if you ever helped a single mum, if you ever offered to mind their child for free so they can study or work to better themselves and their child.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

In a civilised society we don't selfishly stamp our feet and scream, "I demand my rights, and I don't care if others are denied their rights in the process." We try to work out ways in which the human rights of all can be respected.

So how does that work in practice, if I'm pregnant and don't want to remain so?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

So how does that work in practice, if I'm pregnant and don't want to remain so?

If it's simply the fact that you don't want to be pregnant, rather than your life being in danger, then none of your essential human rights (as outlined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights) would appear to be under threat.

If we recognise that what you carry in your womb is a child (and that, remember, is the basis on which I posted in this thread, because jacksie66 made an assertion about a woman who wanted to abort "her child"), then your desire is to deprive that child of the right to life (a recognised human right under Article 3 of the universal Declaration).

So, from a human rights perspective, there is only one party in this scenario (the child) whose human rights are under threat.

Of course if your human rights were under threat (if your life was in danger, or if someone was denying you the right to travel) then there would be a dilemma. In that case legislation and the judiciary must try to resolve the outcome which will involve the least denial of anyone's genuine human rights. That's how it would work in practice in a civilised society.

Just because you want something doesn't make it a human right. Otherwise the concept of 'human rights' becomes meaningless.

lazygal

So if I'm pregnant and I don't want to be, how should the state ensure the rights of the foetus inside me are respected?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

So if I'm pregnant and I don't want to be, how should the state ensure the rights of the foetus inside me are respected?

Remember that I'm a Christian pastor, not a politician, so my focus is not on forcing people to do what is right, but rather on encouraging people to choose the best options based on a common desire to live in a just and equitable society.

A civilised State certainly should not facilitate you in denying your child its human rights. So Constitutional restrictions on abortion within the State seem fair and just.

But ultimately, human rights depend on the interaction between the powerful and the powerless. A mother has an immense power over the unborn child, and if she chooses to abuse her position of power (by breaking the law or by travelling to another State) then there's probably not much that the State can do about it.

hearmehearye

It's strange. I'd love to be a devoted Christian, and the closer I seem to get, this sort of stuff drives me further away.


Is it possible to just let people get on with their lives and do as they wish?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Remember that I'm a Christian pastor, not a politician, so my focus is not on forcing people to do what is right, but rather on encouraging people to choose the best options based on a common desire to live in a just and equitable society.

A civilised State certainly should not facilitate you in denying your child its human rights. So Constitutional restrictions on abortion within the State seem fair and just.

But ultimately, human rights depend on the interaction between the powerful and the powerless. A mother has an immense power over the unborn child, and if she chooses to abuse her position of power (by breaking the law or by travelling to another State) then there's probably not much that the State can do about it.

Should someone who procures an abortion by importing pills be criminalised if they can't travel to kill their unborn child? Are the restrictions on maternity care caused by the eighth amendment just and fair?

lazygal

hearmehearye wrote: »

It's strange. I'd love to be a devoted Christian, and the closer I seem to get, this sort of stuff drives me further away.


Is it possible to just let people get on with their lives and do as they wish?

I used to be a devoted Catholic-I was an alter server and in the church choir. The older I got the more I realised how little most religions value women and how much control they want to exert over our choices and lives. I could never ever be religious again.

Nick Park

hearmehearye wrote: »

It's strange. I'd love to be a devoted Christian, and the closer I seem to get, this sort of stuff drives me further away.


Is it possible to just let people get on with their lives and do as they wish?

Not if their wish involves harming, and even killing, others.

I'm all for you getting on with your life. You can worship whatever you like, wear what you like, eat and drink what you like, engage in consensual sex with whoever you want. But if you want to engage in actions that will abuse or hurt others, particularly those who are weaker and defenceless, then any decent person should be prepared to say, "Hang on, you can't go treating others like that."

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Not if their wish involves harming, and even killing, others.

I'm all for you getting on with your life. You can worship whatever you like, wear what you like, eat and drink what you like, engage in consensual sex with whoever you want. But if you want to engage in actions that will abuse or hurt others, particularly those who are weaker and defenceless, then any decent person should be prepared to say, "Hang on, you can't go treating others like that."

What do you think would happen in Ireland if girls and women weren't allowed to travel to kill the unborn? Suppose the Irish people had voted against the right of pregnant girls and women to travel?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Should someone who procures an abortion by importing pills be criminalised if they can't travel to kill their unborn child? Are the restrictions on maternity care caused by the eighth amendment just and fair?

Since each case is different, I'm not in the business of making blanket assertions about who should be criminalised. There's also a legitimate discussion to be had about when life begins. Most Christians I know would see a clear difference between a 14-year-old rape victim who takes a morning after pill, and a woman who is 6-months pregnant and wants to get rid of her baby so she can fit into a bridesmaid's dress for her friend's wedding.

As I've already said, I'm much more concerned with contributing to a just and fair society that respects human rights than I am with criminalising people.

Has the way the Equality of Life Amendment has been implemented always been just and fair? Probably not. Does that mean that the unborn child should be stripped of Constitutional protection? Certainly not.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Since each case is different, I'm not in the business of making blanket assertions about who should be criminalised. There's also a legitimate discussion to be had about when life begins. Most Christians I know would see a clear difference between a 14-year-old rape victim who takes a morning after pill, and a woman who is 6-months pregnant and wants to get rid of her baby so she can fit into a bridesmaid's dress for her friend's wedding.

As I've already said, I'm much more concerned with contributing to a just and fair society that respects human rights than I am with criminalising people.

Has the way the Equality of Life Amendment has been implemented always been just and fair? Probably not. Does that mean that the unborn child should be stripped of Constitutional protection? Certainly not.

Wow, nice dig at women choosing abortion to fit into a dress. My assessment of the views of religion of women is depressing in its accuracy.

The unborn child was stripped of constitutional protection once women and girls were allowed to travel to kill the unborn.

Does the morning after pill kill the unborn?


ETA, we're calling it the equality of life amendment now?! Jumping on the marriage equality vote won't work, people have already seen through the Youth Defence attempts to use that drivel.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

What do you think would happen in Ireland if girls and women weren't allowed to travel to kill the unborn? Suppose the Irish people had voted against the right of pregnant girls and women to travel?

That would itself be a denial of the human rights of such girls and women according to the Universal Declaration:

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.


Although the Universal Declaration does not recognise abortion as a human right, it does assert the right to travel - and that human right remains irrespective of the purpose for which the person might be traveling.

Again this is not about using the law to hammer people. It is about how a civilised society respects human rights. Ultimately you don't protect one person's basic human rights by denying someone else their basic human rights. This is why it is not morally permissible for police to torture criminals or terrorists, even if such torture might seem to offer hope of saving innocent lives.

One of the worst aspects of human rights abuses is that the powerful enforce their will on the powerless. I mentioned earlier that the mother is much more powerful than the unborn child. But the State is infinitely more powerful, and once the State starts infringing on basic human rights then we're all on our way to hell in a hand basket. That's why interfering with the right of women to travel would ultimately result in a less civilised society.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

That would itself be a denial of the human rights of such girls and women according to the Universal Declaration:

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.


Although the Universal Declaration does not recognise abortion as a human right, it does assert the right to travel - and that human right remains irrespective of the purpose for which the person might be traveling.

Again this is not about using the law to hammer people. It is about how a civilised society respects human rights. Ultimately you don't protect one person's basic human rights by denying someone else their basic human rights. This is why it is not morally permissible for police to torture criminals or terrorists, even if such torture might seem to offer hope of saving innocent lives.

One of the worst aspects of human rights abuses is that the powerful enforce their will on the powerless. I mentioned earlier that the mother is much more powerful than the unborn child. But the State is infinitely more powerful, and once the State starts infringing on basic human rights then we're all on our way to hell in a hand basket. That's why interfering with the right of women to travel would ultimately result in a less civilised society.

Which is less civilised, stopping women travelling to kill the unborn or allowing the freedom to access abortion in Ireland? Are you actually just in favour of women and girls with no means or ability to travel not being able to access abortion?

KingBrian2

This might be in breach of the European court of Justice and of European human rights. This decision could prove costly. Hell even more costly than the British referendum because this shows a trend towards harsher restrictions on Dr's and Medical professionals. In many cases abortion is life saving as we in this country know so these countries are making big mistakes.

9de5q7tsr8u2im

FortySeven wrote: »

Banning abortion? How very backwards.

Doing it because of a story that has as much credibility as the tooth fairy is barbaric.

Tooth fairy, nice logic

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Wow, nice dig at women choosing abortion to fit into a dress. My assessment of the views of religion of women is depressing in its accuracy.

Put your feigned outrage away. You know fine rightly I was using two extremes from the opposite ends of the scale. (I have encountered both scenarios in real life in the UK, but they are both incredibly rare). It's going to be hard to have an actual discussion if you're going to play those kinds of silly games. My point, as you well know, is that not all cases are ethically the same.

Does the morning after pill kill the unborn?

That depends on when we think life and personhood begins.

You seem to be very determined to pick a quarrel here, but remember the context in which I posted in this thread at all. I was responding to a poster who demanded why anyone should tell a woman what to do if she wanted to "abort her CHILD" (not my choice of word). I have simply been pointing out that, if we think we are talking about a child, then the mother does not have an unfettered right to abort that child with no-one having the right to interfere.

ETA, we're calling it the equality of life amendment now?! Jumping on the marriage equality vote won't work, people have already seen through the Youth Defence attempts to use that drivel.

Sorry, you're a bit late to put a copyright on the word 'equality'. Christians have been using the word with regard to human rights for centuries. William Wilberforce did it with regard to slavery, and Martin Luther King did it with regard to racial segregation. The anti-equality crowd are not going to muzzle me when I talk about children having equal rights.

Do you actually know what the 8th Amendment says? I think you'll find that the word 'equality' is in there - and it is perfectly reasonable to point that out when people advocate the removal of that equality from the Constitution.

9de5q7tsr8u2im

Nick Park wrote: »

Put your feigned outrage away. You know fine rightly I was using two extremes from the opposite ends of the scale. (I have encountered both scenarios in real life in the UK, but they are both incredibly rare). It's going to be hard to have an actual discussion if you're going to play those kinds of silly games. My point, as you well know, is that not all cases are ethically the same.


That depends on when we think life and personhood begins.

You seem to be very determined to pick a quarrel here, but remember the context in which I posted in this thread at all. I was responding to a poster who demanded why anyone should tell a woman what to do if she wanted to "abort her CHILD" (not my choice of word). I have simply been pointing out that, if we think we are talking about a child, then the mother does not have an unfettered right to abort that child with no-one having the right to interfere.



Sorry, you're a bit late to put a copyright on the word 'equality'. Christians have been using the word with regard to human rights for centuries. William Wilberforce did it with regard to slavery, and Martin Luther King did it with regard to racial segregation. The anti-equality crowd are not going to muzzle me when I talk about children having equal rights.

Do you actually know what the 8th Amendment says? I think you'll find that the word 'equality' is in there - and it is perfectly reasonable to point that out when people advocate the removal of that equality from the Constitution.

Some inspiring answers you have written, also have taken a look at your past. Brilliant and motivating!

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Which is less civilised, stopping women travelling to kill the unborn or allowing the freedom to access abortion in Ireland?

You're spectacularly missing the point. We do not remove one person's human rights in order to preserve someone else's human rights. That remains true even if we think that one human right is more important than another.

Think of this scenario. The police capture a murderous paedophile. This criminal has hidden a child somewhere, and unless the police find the child in the next few hours then the child will die. Is it permissible to torture the paedophile (denying his basic human rights) in order to save the child (whose death would be an even more serious denial of human rights)? In a civilised society we forbid the police to torture the paedophile, even if it results in the death of the child.

If you think about it, it's not a difficult principle to understand. You open a Pandora's Box for authoritarianism and tyranny when you justify any human rights abuse on the basis that 'the end justifies the means'.

Are you actually just in favour of women and girls with no means or ability to travel not being able to access abortion?

No, and nothing I've said could be construed by any reasonable person as implying that I hold any such view. I've presented a coherent human-rights based explanation as to why the State can't restrict such travel. It's not my fault if you don't like where that logic takes us.

FortySeven

Alden Colossal Self-indulgence wrote: »

Tooth fairy, nice logic

To me, who was never indoctrinated in any religion, I'm afraid the comparison makes perfect sense. To me, the only difference between Santa and God is that I was never told God wasn't real.

I hope this is not classed as trolling. I firmly believe that there are no grounds for believing in any of the gods people worship. I'm not trying to get a rise or be argumentative.

It's just indoctrination. It's dangerous and insidious. Imo.

mdebets

Nick Park wrote: »

Remember that I'm a Christian pastor, not a politician, so my focus is not on forcing people to do what is right, but rather on encouraging people to choose the best options based on a common desire to live in a just and equitable society.

A civilised State certainly should not facilitate you in denying your child its human rights. So Constitutional restrictions on abortion within the State seem fair and just.

You are contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you don't want to force people to do what is right, but on the other hand you want to force people to not have an abortion by campaigning to keep it illegal in most cases.
If you (not you personally, but pro-life people in generally) want to encourage people to choose the best options', shouldn't you rather campaign to improve the life of children (born and unborn) and mothers (e.g. better financial support for single mothers, free child care) and campaign to prevent pregnancies in the first place (e.g. free contraception, better teaching about contraception in school), so that a pregnancy that would need an abortion doesn't happen in the first place?

9de5q7tsr8u2im

mdebets wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you don't want to force people to do what is right, but on the other hand you want to force people to not have an abortion by campaigning to keep it illegal in most cases.
If you (not you personally, but pro-life people in generally) want to encourage people to choose the best options', shouldn't you rather campaign to improve the life of children (born and unborn) and mothers (e.g. better financial support for single mothers, free child care) and campaign to prevent pregnancies in the first place (e.g. free contraception, better teaching about contraception in school), so that a pregnancy that would need an abortion doesn't happen in the first place?

Abortion is illegal full stop.
Funny thing is does it look like hes a TD for gods sake, there is support already, all of this is already taking place in schools and not everyone is going to follow it.

9de5q7tsr8u2im

FortySeven wrote: »

To me, who was never indoctrinated in any religion, I'm afraid the comparison makes perfect sense. To me, the only difference between Santa and God is that I was never told God wasn't real.

I hope this is not classed as trolling. I firmly believe that there are no grounds for believing in any of the gods people worship. I'm not trying to get a rise or be argumentative.

It's just indoctrination. It's dangerous and insidious. Imo.

Santa is real and god isn't you happy now?

lazygal

Alden Colossal Self-indulgence wrote: »

Abortion is illegal full stop.
Funny thing is does it look like hes a TD for gods sake, there is support already, all of this is already taking place in schools and not everyone is going to follow it.

Abortion is legal full stop, if your life is at risk or you can travel for one. And Catholic schools can't teach about contraception other than natural family planning as Catholics aren't allowed to use artificial contraception.

lazygal

mdebets wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you don't want to force people to do what is right, but on the other hand you want to force people to not have an abortion by campaigning to keep it illegal in most cases.
If you (not you personally, but pro-life people in generally) want to encourage people to choose the best options', shouldn't you rather campaign to improve the life of children (born and unborn) and mothers (e.g. better financial support for single mothers, free child care) and campaign to prevent pregnancies in the first place (e.g. free contraception, better teaching about contraception in school), so that a pregnancy that would need an abortion doesn't happen in the first place?

There's circumstances in which the best option for me would be abortion. I'm married, financially stable and have children I can care for already. All the support in the world wouldn't make me want to stay pregnant against my wishes though. Not all girls and women seeking abortion would stay pregnant just because of better support from the state or got pregnant because they didn't use contraception.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Are you really sure you want to continue arguing that a freshly fertilised human embryo that has yet to even embed in the uterine wall is a child?

I certainly wouldn't consider it anything more than the as yet unrealised potential for one, hence my point referred to the position only held by the staunchest of Catholics. More specifically that the Vatican for example consider use of the morning after pill to constitute abortion.

Vatican wrote:

3. It is clear, therefore, that the proven "anti-implantation" action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing.

I don't believe very many Catholics would hold to this notion, let alone other Christians and would guess that the market for the morning after pill in this country includes very many such Christians using them as emergency contraception. So when you say

Neither fair nor coherent, given that Christians hold a wide variety of pro-life positions.

and later raise the question regarding whether the morning after pill constitutes abortion

Nick Park wrote: »

That depends on when we think life and personhood begins.

you really need to answer that question. Specifically, when does personhood begin? When precisely can you say the embryo in the woman's womb is a child with rights?

If you take the stance that it is any time later than the moment of conception, you've actually just landed yourself on the pro-choice side of the fence from the perspective of Catholic dogma, illustrating again that the point at which personhood begins is matter of religious belief for many.

In order to suggest anyone is consciously killing children here, as you seem to be doing, we need to be able to agree when precisely this child comes into being. I'd be keen to hear your opinion on this.

Timberrrrrrrr

Aboration in Poland is already banned except for certain circumstances

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Poland

Abortion in Poland is banned except in the following three circumstances.

When the woman's life or health is endangered by the continuation of pregnancy,
When the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act, or
When the fetus is seriously malformed
Unlike in other countries where abortion is banned, women in Poland are not subject to a penalty for illegal termination of pregnancy. Consent of a physician is required for the circumstances (1) and (3) above, while abortions in view of circumstance (2) above must be certified by prosecutor. Parental consent is always required if the woman seeking abortion is a minor.[1]

All that will happen is a situation similar to.our own where women will.habe to travel (as many already do in poland) to another country to avail of abortion services.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67P46Z20100826

Official statistics show only several hundred abortions are performed every year, but pro-choice campaigners say underground abortions are very common.

"We estimate... that on average 150,000 abortions are performed per year," Wanda Nowicka, head of the Federation for Women and Family Planning, told lawmakers at a meeting in the Polish parliament on Thursday.

"Of this number, some 10-15 percent of abortions are performed abroad and this number is definitely growing."

Doctors from Germany, Austria, Britain and the Netherlands who terminate the pregnancies of Polish women every day also attended the meeting.

smacl

solodeogloria wrote: »

I am pro-life on non-religious secular human rights grounds and arguably it is a secular political issue for the Politics forum.

Rather ironic that the Christian response to debate from non-Christians regarding abortion is that they should go elsewhere.