Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Threads merged.

solodeogloria

smacl wrote: »

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

Good morning!

I wouldn't consider my post the Christian response but a Christian view.

Too often pro-choice people make out that pro-life automatically is Christian. That isn't true. Atheists can be (and many are pro-life) as are many different types of people.

I'm happy to explain what the Bible says about abortion but it is up to the state to determine laws. I think that should be based on secular reasons and not specifically Christian ones.

I don't particularly like discussing secular political matters on the Christianity forum.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Delirium

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I wouldn't consider my post the Christian response but a Christian view.

Too often pro-choice people make out that pro-life automatically is Christian. That isn't true. Atheists can and many are pro-life as are many different types of people.

I'm happy to explain what the Bible says about abortion but it is up to the state to determine laws. I think that should be based on secular reasons and not specifically Christian ones.

I don't particularly like discussing secular political matters on the Christianity forum.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Well given that the thread I just merged with this one stated that Russia was returning to 'Christian values' by banning abortion, I can see why some people would assume that.

solodeogloria

Delirium wrote: »

Well given that the thread I just merged with this one stated that Russia was returning to 'Christian values' by banning abortion, I can see why some people would assume that.

Good morning!

In all due respect I questioned that thoroughly. But on many threads people make that assumption incorrectly.

I wish Russia's sudden pro-life shift would have happened a few months ago when they were bombing hospitals in Aleppo.

I digress.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

lazygal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

In all due respect I questioned that thoroughly. But on many threads people make that assumption incorrectly.

I wish Russia's sudden pro-life shift would have happened a few months ago when they were bombing hospitals in Aleppo.

I digress.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Good morning!
What should girls and women who want and need abortions do instead?
Much thanks.

Delirium

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.

MOD NOTE

If you wish to discuss the existence of God, please avail yourself of the atheism/ existence of God megathread..

Any further existence of God/indoctrination/tooth fairy derailment of the thread will result in deletion of posts (and possibly a card).

Thanks for your attention.

smacl

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I wouldn't consider my post the Christian response but a Christian view.

Too often pro-choice people make out that pro-life automatically is Christian. That isn't true. Atheists can be (and many are pro-life) as are many different types of people.

I'm happy to explain what the Bible says about abortion but it is up to the state to determine laws. I think that should be based on secular reasons and not specifically Christian ones.

I don't particularly like discussing secular political matters on the Christianity forum.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Good morning,

It is an unfortunate fact that laws surrounding abortion are informed by Christian theology in this country and therefore theocratic rather than secular, hence atheists such as myself posting here. As with Nick, I'd be interested in hearing what your opinion is as to when a new human being comes into existence. Until we have broad agreement as to when this is, free from undue religious influence, it is hard to envisage how we can approach this from a secular perspective.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

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

My feeling would be you can say it's anytime you like; what matters is actually the opinion of the judiciary (and, possibly, the electorate). In Ireland, we confer the right to life on an unborn person, and our Courts have determined that an unborn person exists from implantation. Unless and until we have a plebiscite to decide differently, regardless of the fact that many people may believe a person exists from an earlier or later point of development, that's where we rest for now.

smacl wrote: »

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.

I think on the pro-choice side of the fence might be rather an overstatement; probably a little closer to the fence but still on the same side as Catholic dogma might be more accurate. And in fairness, it is a matter of belief at what point personhood exists full stop; personhood is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. So philosophical institutions, like Churches, aren't badly placed to offer opinions, but at the end of the day everyone's opinion, no matter who, is just an opinion.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

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.

And yet you chose to get involved in an interchange which, in the words of the anti-equality advocate, was about the right of a mother "to abort her CHILD". So my response to that poster was entirely on the agreed basis that we were talking about a child.

My point, which is reasonable, is that other people do have a right to express an opinion, and for the law to intervene, when someone wishes to kill a CHILD.

More specifically that the Vatican for example consider use of the morning after pill to constitute abortion.

I don't give two hoots what the Vatican says. My stance on abortion is based on human rights, not church dogma

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

I didn't raise the question. I responded to a direct question from another poster who asked about 'abortion pills'. My response was that not every case is the same.

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?

I don't know that anyone can answer that question with certainty. I suspect that most people believe it is somewhere between conception and delivery. My instinct is to err on the side of safety (better to protect a foetus that is not yet a person than to kill one that is). That is the same principle we use in other areas of law (for example in drink driving laws. We can't pinpoint the exact moment each driver becomes impaired, so we try to build in a safety margin).

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.

Again, I don't give a fig about dogma. This is about human rights.

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.

No, when a poster defends the right of a mother "to abort her CHILD" then they have already conceded that a child has come into being.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't know that anyone can answer that question with certainty. I suspect that most people believe it is somewhere between conception and delivery. My instinct is to err on the side of safety (better to protect a foetus that is not yet a person than to kill one that is).

So if there are two lives on the line, that of the mother and the foetus, erring on the side of safety would be to protect the mother which we are entirely sure is a fully fledged human being.

Again, I don't give a fig about dogma. This is about human rights.

We're in agreement there so. We just need to agree what exactly constitutes a human life. We know the mother does, but at what stage exactly the foetus does is rather more nebulous.

No, when a poster defends the right of a mother "to abort her CHILD" then they have already conceded that a child has come into being.

This is no more than semantics. Whether you refer to a foetus a few weeks into gestation as a child, and unborn child, a foetus or little Timmy Tucker doesn't in any way change what it is or is not. I don't think that many people in this country truthfully consider the abortion of an early stage foetus directly comparable say to the murder of a young child. Do you? If not, and I presume not, why should it (we can't even say he or she yet) be accorded similar rights?

lazygal

Nick Park, why do you think so many countries make it legal for women and girls to kill children, once they're inside rather than outside the uterus?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

So if there are two lives on the line, that of the mother and the foetus, erring on the side of safety would be to protect the mother which we are entirely sure is a fully fledged human being.

That reflects the legal reality where, if a mother's life is in danger, an abortion is permitted.

There is, of course, another reason why we permit abortion in the case of threat to the mother's life. The unborn child is dependent on the mother for life, and it makes sense to save at least one life rather than to lose two lives.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

That reflects the legal reality where, if a mother's life is in danger, an abortion is permitted.

There is, of course, another reason why we permit abortion in the case of threat to the mother's life. The unborn child is dependent on the mother for life, and it makes sense to save at least one life rather than to lose two lives.

Why? Is the Christian view not that life after death is even better than life here on earth?

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Nick Park, why do you think so many countries make it legal for women and girls to kill children, once they're inside rather than outside the uterus?

Because unlike our country they don't afford the right to life to unborn children?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Because unlike our country they don't afford the right to life to unborn children?

But we limit the right to life of the unborn here too-you can kill it elsewhere or where a pregnant girl or woman's life is being threatened.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Why? Is the Christian view not that life after death is even better than life here on earth?

I think the current Christian view is it's not up to us to decide when to send anyone there though...

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Nick Park, why do you think so many countries make it legal for women and girls to kill children, once they're inside rather than outside the uterus?

Because the recognition of human rights is an evolving state of affairs. Lots of countries allow practices that involve human rights violations.

When William Wilberforce succeeded in getting slavery abolished in the UK, there were plenty of countries that continued the practice (for example, the USA). Human rights awareness does not usually develop by every nation taking the same steps at the same time. Someone has to take a lead. I want to belong to a society that is proactive in defending the powerless.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Why? Is the Christian view not that life after death is even better than life here on earth?

Now you're not even attempting to engage in reasoned discussion.

You might as well argue that murder should be OK if the victims go to heaven.

I have consistently presented a human rights argument in this discussion, not a theological argument. Human rights should be defended whether you believe in an after-life or not. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

But we limit the right to life of the unborn here too-you can kill it elsewhere or where a pregnant girl or woman's life is being threatened.

We don't limit it here; what happens outside the jurisdiction is beyond our facility to limit, and allowing the killing of the unborn in order to save the life of their mother doesn't place any limit on their right to life, it acknowledges that the unborn will die either way, and that their death will save the life of the mother.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Because the recognition of human rights is an evolving state of affairs. Lots of countries allow practices that involve human rights violations.

When William Wilberforce succeeded in getting slavery abolished in the UK, there were plenty of countries that continued the practice (for example, the USA). Human rights awareness does not usually develop by every nation taking the same steps at the same time. Someone has to take a lead. I want to belong to a society that is proactive in defending the powerless.

Is a nine year old pregnant with twins as a result of rape powerless? Should she be entitled to an abortion?

What about the countries that seem to be functioning perfectly well, including allowing girls and women to make the decision about abortion, like Canada where abortion is a medical matter? Do you think it respects human rights? Do you think it would be progressive for all countries to follow Ireland's abortion law, and criminalise all abortions where a life is not at risk?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Now you're not even attempting to engage in reasoned discussion.

You might as well argue that murder should be OK if the victims go to heaven.

I have consistently presented a human rights argument in this discussion, not a theological argument. Human rights should be defended whether you believe in an after-life or not. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Nope, you haven't. And then you decided to throw in an anecdote about a woman who got an abortion so she could fit into a bridesmaid dress for good measure, along with the Youth Defence life equality nonsense.

It's very difficult to believe you're actually concerned about human rights of women like me who actually might want and need abortions, but have to go elsewhere to get them.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think it would be progressive for all countries to follow Ireland's abortion law, and criminalise all abortions where a life is not at risk?

I do.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

I do.

What criminal sentence should a nine year old who has an abortion receive?

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Because the recognition of human rights is an evolving state of affairs. Lots of countries allow practices that involve human rights violations.

Indeed. Ireland being one of them according to the UN, specifically in relation to abortion.

Going back my previous question, do you consider early term abortion directly comparable to murder in terms of gravity of the crime? If not, why not?

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

What criminal sentence should a nine year old who has an abortion receive?

I think I'd leave that up to the system she's convicted under and the judge who passes sentence; I'm not convinced a nine year old who was subjected to an abortion could be held entirely responsible for that action are you? That may seem a little too reasonable for the purposes of your polemic, but I'm not sure what kind of sentence a nine year old who conspired to commit murder would get, if any at all, since I suspect it would be the adults involved who would be held responsible. I don't think any jurisdiction would take a harsher view of abortion than murder, do you?

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

I think I'd leave that up to the system she's convicted under and the judge who passes sentence; I'm not convinced a nine year old who was subjected to an abortion could be held entirely responsible for that action are you? That may seem a little too reasonable for the purposes of your polemic, but I'm not sure what kind of sentence a nine year old who conspired to commit murder would get, if any at all, since I suspect it would be the adults involved who would be held responsible. I don't think any jurisdiction would take a harsher view of abortion than murder, do you?

If a 9 year old pregnant rape victim requested an abort ion and had the blessing of both parents would you agree that the child should be allowed to have the abortion or do you think they should be forced to give birth to their rapists baby?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Nope, you haven't.

I haven't presented my argument from a human rights standpoint rather than a theological standpoint? Really? Don't you think that these discussions should be carried out honestly? Please link to any point in this interchange where I have argued a point on the grounds of religious dogma rather than human rights issues.

And then you decided to throw in an anecdote about a woman who got an abortion so she could fit into a bridesmaid dress for good measure,

No, I presented a balanced point where I referred to two very rare, but actual cases. One was a traumatic and heart-rending dilemma concerning a teenage rape victim. The other was a very trivial reason to have an abortion. If we are honest, both sides will admit that both scenarios exist. The pro-equality side would be dishonest if they didn't acknowledge the plight of raped children. The anti-equality side would be equally dishonest if they pretended that no-one ever had an abortion for a trivial reason. Similarly, both sides would be guilty of extremely dishonesty if they argued as if such extremes, on either side, are the norm.

My point, and it is a perfectly valid one, is that you can't make blanket statements about who should be criminalised when cases can vary so dramatically.

For you to then start making wild and inaccurate generalisations about religion and women was, to be frank, more a piece of obfuscation and hand-waving than any attempt to have a reasoned discussion

along with the Youth Defence life equality nonsense.

We are discussing a Constitutional Amendment that refers specifically to equality of life. That's what it says on the tin (to quote the Ronseal advert). You wish to remove the clause in the Constitution that gives unborn children an equal right to life. You can hardly then start hurling accusations around because some of us use the very language about equality that you want to get shot of.

You really couldn't make this stuff up!

It's very difficult to believe you're actually concerned about human rights of women like me who actually might want and need abortions, but have to go elsewhere to get them.

No, it's very easy to believe. Unfortunately your modus operandi, when confronted with facts or opinions that don't suit you, appears to be to attack the motives of those who hold different views to your own.

I am passionate about your human rights being protected, which is why I defend your right to travel as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You have not actually presented any human rights arguments so far. You have simply asserted that you should be allowed to abort a child because you want to. What you want does not necessarily constitute a human right, and we demean the concept of genuine human rights if we pretend otherwise.

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If a 9 year old pregnant rape victim requested an abort ion and had the blessing of both parents would you agree that the child should be allowed to have the abortion or do you think they should be forced to give birth to their rapists baby?

I would not; whatever the horrors the nine year old has suffered, and will suffer as a result of giving birth to the children of a rapist, they are not sufficient to justify killing an innocent person. Yes I know, it's a carefully constructed heartstring tugging scenario, and I'm sure there are people who think not allowing her to have an abortion shows a terrible lack of empathy, inhuman callousness and so on. But the truth is I agree it's a terrible terrible thing to happen to a child, and it's terrible to force further suffering on her when it would be so easy to at least take some measure of that pain away from her. Just not as terrible as killing someone.

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

I would not; whatever the horrors the nine year old has suffered, and will suffer as a result of giving birth to the children of a rapist, they are not sufficient to justify killing an innocent person. Yes I know, it's a carefully constructed heartstring tugging scenario, and I'm sure there are people who think not allowing her to kill some shows a terrible lack of empathy, inhuman callousness and so on. But the truth is I agree it's a terrible terrible thing to happen to a child, and it's terrible to force further suffering on her when it would be so easy to at least take some measure of that pain away from her. Just not as terrible as killing someone.

So you would physically and mentally scar a child to protect a clump of cells that are a few weeks old? Says it all really.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Indeed. Ireland being one of them according to the UN, specifically in relation to abortion.

Going back my previous question, do you consider early term abortion directly comparable to murder in terms of gravity of the crime? If not, why not?

Despite the spin put on it by the media, the UN General Assembly did not vote on this and condemn Ireland. A committee certainly made such an assertion.

Is Ireland perfect with regard to human rights? Not at all. Has the application and implementation of our legislation on abortion sometimes been wrong and unjust? Absolutely. Does that mean we should scrap any Constitutional protection for the unborn? No.

I think our country deserves a reasoned discussion on this subject. Some of the contributions (from both sides) on this thread make me wonder if we are mature and civil enough to do so.

Going back my previous question, do you consider early term abortion directly comparable to murder in terms of gravity of the crime? If not, why not?

That would depend on how early we are talking, the reasons for the abortion, and what kind of a consensus we reach as to when personhood begins.

I know we often act in these forums as if we have all the answers, but sometimes it is more important to be the people who ask the right questions rather than to pretend that we have all the right answers.

In the past people rationalised dreadful human rights abuses by arguing that others (because of the colour of their skin, or their gender) were not fully human. Today we recognise how awful that was. A few compassionate and forward-thinking people recognised at the time that it was awful.

My question is, What if we realise down the line that personhood begins very early indeed? What if we realise that we had legally killed people, either because they were inconvenient, or because they were the wrong gender or had the wrong number of chromosomes? Wouldn't a civilised society try to avoid such a scenario by developing compassionate legislation that respects everyone's human rights?

Another thought, Wouldn't it be wonderful if we turned out to be the people who were forward thinking enough to protect those who suffering a great injustice?