Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

If my reasons are genuine (what are the genuine reasons, anyway?) am I still selfish if I kill an unborn child? Which is more selfish, taking the morning after pill or the abortion pill, or are they the same?

Do you understand the difference between 'genuinely thinking' something and having 'genuine reasons'?

If not, then I do appreciate that any nuanced position rather than dogmatic arguing is probably going to appear like waffling to you?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

In a similar way, there are those who genuinely think they are doing the right thing (or at least an ethically neutral thing) in aborting their babies. Stigmatising them as murderers will probably not be the most effective way of protecting the human rights of unborn children.

So what is the best way of protecting the human rights of unborn children? Do you think women and girls who have abortions are murderers, or just that calling them that won't help you in your desire to ban all abortion?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between 'genuinely thinking' something and having 'genuine reasons'?

If not, then I do appreciate that any nuanced position rather than dogmatic arguing is probably going to appear like waffling to you?

With all due respect Nick, you are waffling.

You're skirting around exactly what banning all abortions will involve. I will want an abortion in particular circumstances. If abortion isn't legal, and I've little money, I can shove an implement into my cervix in an attempt at a home abortion and possibly suffer life long damage as a result. If I have money, I go to a doctor who's name is discretely passed around and have a safe, clean abortion no questions asked.

Now, is that sort of society more or less selfish that Ireland today?

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

Probably not. The extent of our culpability depends on our perception of right and wrong.

Let's use a simple example. A mother in Somalia carries out FGM against her daughter, fully convinced that she is doing something good that will enhance her daughter's life by making her marriageable. On the same day, a mother in Dublin carries out FGM against her daughter, even though she knows that the practice will cause lasting damage and trauma.

Now, the practice of FGM is equally wrong and barbaric wherever it occurs. The violation of the daughter's human rights is equally horrifying in each case. But would we treat each mother as equally guilty? Most people would see a distinction between the two. We would see one as needing education, whereas the other probably should be prosecuted. Our major goal, from a human rights perspective, should be to see FGM eliminated altogether - but we might not get there by treating both mothers the same.

In a similar way, there are those who genuinely think they are doing the right thing (or at least an ethically neutral thing) in aborting their babies. Stigmatising them as murderers will probably not be the most effective way of protecting the human rights of unborn children.

Let's forget about comparisons and deal with the issue at hand.

I have an abortion because I don't want to be pregnant. I make the decision myself. I'm thinking clearly, I'm not under duress. I have the abortion and feel relieved, I have no regrets.

Am I any different to a person who kills a six year old child?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

You certainly seem to hold very different notions about selfish behaviour and protecting the vulnerable in society than I would. For example, the fact that a male dominated religion would like to take charge of how and when a woman chooses to reproduce to me would seem entirely selfish. Similarly, a girl or woman who finds herself in the dreadful position where she is seeking an illegal abortion as it is the only avenue open to her would strike me as one of the most vulnerable members of our society.

I would also see it as selfish (and tyrannical) for a religion (male-dominated or not) to take charge of how and when a woman chooses to reproduce.

That, of course, is a very different issue from whether a compassionate secular society should allow a woman, once having reproduced, to terminate her offspring. And Christians, as much as anyone else, have a right to contribute to such human rights debates. Trying to automatically dismiss us as simply enforcing dogma, even when its clear that we have genuine human rights concerns, smacks of bigotry.

Today most of us, religious or not, recognise that William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King, even though their values were informed by their faith, did the entire human race a service by opposing slavery and racial segregation.

I certainly agree that a girl or woman who sees an illegal abortion as her only option needs compassion and help. The very fact she feels that way is often an indication that our society has already failed to protect her. But we cannot thereby assume that her perception (that an abortion is the only answer) is automatically correct.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

But we cannot thereby assume that her perception (that an abortion is the only answer) is automatically correct.

Why? I am a woman who has decided to stay pregnant twice. I may have an abortion in certain circumstances in the future. How do you know better than me what is right for me, my husband and my family in all circumstances surrounding all my pregnancies?

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

I certainly agree that a girl or woman who sees an illegal abortion as her only option needs compassion and help. The very fact she feels that way is often an indication that our society has already failed to protect her. But we cannot thereby assume that her perception (that an abortion is the only answer) is automatically correct.

How can you say it's not correct? What makes you better qualified than she is to judge that?

And most woman don't have abortions because they think it's their only option. They do it because they feel its the best option.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

With all due respect Nick, you are waffling.

You're skirting around exactly what banning all abortions will involve. I will want an abortion in particular circumstances. If abortion isn't legal, and I've little money, I can shove an implement into my cervix in an attempt at a home abortion and possibly suffer life long damage as a result. If I have money, I go to a doctor who's name is discretely passed around and have a safe, clean abortion no questions asked.

Now, is that sort of society more or less selfish that Ireland today?

No, I'm answering questions in a way that seeks to preserve human rights and create a better society. And dogmatic hardline approaches aren't usually the way we get to that place.

You, in contrast, have contributed little meaningful debate. Your main point has been, "If I want to have an abortion then I should be allowed to" and you seem to think that if you aren't automatically allowed to do whatever you want then that somehow infringes on your human rights (even though nothing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being denied to you).

Rather than use logic or show any desire to engage in reasoned discussion you have resorted to falsehoods about the motives of others and hostility.

Nick Park

eviltwin wrote: »

How can you say it's not correct? What makes you better qualified than she is to judge that?

I didn't say its incorrect. I said we can't automatically assume that her perception is correct.

Are we really going to reduce all discussion about right or wrong to a simplistic, and silly, assertion that no-one else has the right to question the perception of the individual who is contemplating taking an action?

And most woman don't have abortions because they think it's their only option. They do it because they feel its the best option.

Then take it up with smacl, not me. "the only avenue" was their choice of words, not mine - I simply responded to their question.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I'm answering questions in a way that seeks to preserve human rights and create a better society. And dogmatic hardline approaches aren't usually the way we get to that place.

You, in contrast, have contributed little meaningful debate. Your main point has been, "If I want to have an abortion then I should be allowed to" and you seem to think that if you aren't automatically allowed to do whatever you want then that somehow infringes on your human rights (even though nothing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being denied to you).

Rather than use logic or show any desire to engage in reasoned discussion you have resorted to falsehoods about the motives of others and hostility.

Nick, you've presented no reasonable basis for why I should be forced to remain pregnant against my wishes.
You've waffled about your desire for a more equal and just society that's less selfish, yet you want the only solution for all pregnant girls and women to be your solution, that is, stay pregnant.
You've shown no desire to consider that women like me, sentient women who are capable of making choices about their lives, deserve and need access to abortion, which they can only have access to if they have money. You see nothing wrong with only the sick and the poor not having abortion access.

In short, I hope when the repeal campaign on the eighth begins, the evangelical alliance has someone on board who isn't solely interested in the unborn and offers nothing but platitudes to the 12 women and girls who need abortions here every single day.

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

I didn't say its incorrect. I said we can't automatically assume that her perception is correct.

Are we really going to reduce all discussion about right or wrong to a simplistic, and silly, assertion that no-one else has the right to question the perception of the individual who is contemplating taking an action?



Then take it up with smacl, not me. "the only avenue" was their choice of words, not mine - I simply responded to their question.

I wonder do you question the reasoning of people who choose other medical care. I doubt it. I shouldn't have to prove I'm making the right decision if I choose to have an abortion no more than I should if I decide to have a baby. I'm a fully functioning, mentally competent person whose mental capabilities aren't called into question for any other choice I make. It's patronising to suggest I should have that questioned for having an abortion.

Nick Park

eviltwin wrote: »

Let's forget about comparisons and deal with the issue at hand.

I have an abortion because I don't want to be pregnant. I make the decision myself. I'm thinking clearly, I'm not under duress. I have the abortion and feel relieved, I have no regrets.

Am I any different to a person who kills a six year old child?

If you are really aware and fully believe that your abortion was killing a child, then that would seem to me to be a heinous act.

I'm getting the feeling that you keep asking the same questions and just ignore my answers.

If someone is not fully aware of the consequences and import of their action, then they are not just the same as someone who commits the same act with a full knowledge of what they are doing. That's clear enough, surely?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

If someone is not fully aware of the consequences and import of their action, then they are not just the same as someone who commits the same act with a full knowledge of what they are doing. That's clear enough, surely?

What are the consequences and import of the act of abortion? Do you think women who have abortions don't know what they're having? Or that they know but don't care and for some reason this should mean they can't have abortions?

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

If you are really aware and fully believe that your abortion was killing a child, then that would seem to me to be a heinous act.

I'm getting the feeling that you keep asking the same questions and just ignore my answers.

If someone is not fully aware of the consequences and import of their action, then they are not just the same as someone who commits the same act with a full knowledge of what they are doing. That's clear enough, surely?

What should the penalty for that heinous act be?

Nick Park

eviltwin wrote: »

I wonder do you question the reasoning of people who choose other medical care. I doubt it. I shouldn't have to prove I'm making the right decision if I choose to have an abortion no more than I should if I decide to have a baby. I'm a fully functioning, mentally competent person whose mental capabilities aren't called into question for any other choice I make. It's patronising to suggest I should have that questioned for having an abortion.

This is getting nonsensical. I would question the reasoning of someone making a decision that would harm someone else. For example, if one conjoined twin opted for a medical procedure that would provide some cosmetic benefit, but would cause the death of their twin, then that is quite obviously a different issue, ethically speaking, than a commonplace medical procedure.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

This is getting nonsensical. I would question the reasoning of someone making a decision that would harm someone else. For example, if one conjoined twin opted for a medical procedure that would provide some cosmetic benefit, but would cause the death of their twin, then that is quite obviously a different issue, ethically speaking, than a commonplace medical procedure.

Do you think all girls and women who have abortions aren't fully compus mentus?

Nick Park

eviltwin wrote: »

What should the penalty for that heinous act be?

I tell you what. I'll just hold up my hand and you can talk past it. Since you don't bother listening to my replies it'll have the same net result.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

That, of course, is a very different issue from whether a compassionate secular society should allow a woman, once having reproduced, to terminate her offspring. And Christians, as much as anyone else, have a right to contribute to such human rights debates. Trying to automatically dismiss us as simply enforcing dogma, even when its clear that we have genuine human rights concerns, smacks of bigotry.

A woman who has conceived has not yet reproduced, and very many human rights activists would say that it is her decision whether or not she does so. Of course Christians contribute to the debate, and I'm not dismissing them or you, merely that the argument you put forward is very far from secular.

Today most of us, religious or not, recognise that William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King, even though their values were informed by their faith, did the entire human race a service by opposing slavery and racial segregation.

Yes, some religiously inspired people did some very good things. Other similarly inspired people some rather bad things, and much of the barbarity in human history claims religious inspiration.

I certainly agree that a girl or woman who sees an illegal abortion as her only option needs compassion and help. The very fact she feels that way is often an indication that our society has already failed to protect her. But we cannot thereby assume that her perception (that an abortion is the only answer) is automatically correct.

Not the point though. The point is we have very many desperate and vulnerable people in our society that need our help and I for one don't count freshly embedded embryos or first trimester foetuses among them.

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

I tell you what. I'll just hold up my hand and you can talk past it. Since you don't bother listening to my replies it'll have the same net result.

It's a very simple question Nick. You believe abortion is the taking of a life. You've described it as heinous. It's a natural assumption you would support sanctions. Does the unborn not deserve the same justice as the living?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Yes, some religiously inspired people did some very good things. Other similarly inspired people some rather bad things, and much of the barbarity in human history claims religious inspiration.

Ah, now the old chestnuts start coming out. We were doing so well, too.

I cited Wilberforce and Luther King not because they 'did some good things' but because they demonstrate that positive human rights advances and values can be religiously informed, and should not therefore be summarily dismissed.

Nick Park

MrPudding wrote: »

So anyway, hugs all round, can you address my point now?

I think your point was to do with the right to travel.

I don't see that we should restrict football hooligans from travelling. I would support Gardai travelling with them and, if the suspected hooligans break the law in their country of destination, then giving testimony so the hooligans are prosecuted in that overseas jurisdiction.

Banning them from travelling is certainly something I would see David Cameron smugly doing, but then he never understood human rights very well anyway. Has Ireland got such football hooligans? According to the media our supporters are too busy singing to babies to cause trouble.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Ah, now the old chestnuts start coming out. We were doing so well, too.

I cited Wilberforce and Luther King not because they 'did some good things' but because they demonstrate that positive human rights advances and values can be religiously informed, and should not therefore be summarily dismissed.

Chestnuts or apples and oranges? Slavery and racism bear no relationship to abortion whatsoever. Yes positive human rights can be religiously informed, just as repression of human rights are so regularly religiously informed. My opinion is that the latter is true in this case, as is the view of amnesty international who are of the opinion that 80% of the Irish public would vote to repeal the 8th amendment. Your notion of human rights in this instance would appear contrary to that of the major human rights organisations out there.

lazygal

smacl wrote: »

Chestnuts or apples and oranges? Slavery and racism bear no relationship to abortion whatsoever. Yes positive human rights can be religiously informed, just as repression of human rights are so regularly religiously informed. My opinion is that the latter is true in this case, as is the view of amnesty international who are of the opinion that 80% of the Irish public would vote to repeal the 8th amendment. Your notion of human rights in this instance would appear contrary to that of the major human rights organisations out there.

There is no way the eighth wasn't religiously inspired. Despite attempts to rebrand it as the life equality (what does that even mean, really) amendment, it was a direct result of the interference of religion, specifically the catholic church.

Timberrrrrrrr

Nick Park wrote: »

I think your point was to do with the right to travel.

I don't see that we should restrict football hooligans from travelling. I would support Gardai travelling with them and, if the suspected hooligans break the law in their country of destination, then giving testimony so the hooligans are prosecuted in that overseas jurisdiction.

Banning them from travelling is certainly something I would see David Cameron smugly doing, but then he never understood human rights very well anyway. Has Ireland got such football hooligans? According to the media our supporters are too busy singing to babies to cause trouble.

You think it was/is Cameron who started banning hooligans from travelling?

Why let them.go in the first place when you can stop a crime from happening before it is committed?

Who would pay for the many hundreds of police officers that would need to travel with these hooligans and keep them.under close watch for up to 4 weeks?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Has Ireland got such football hooligans?

No, but it does shunt 12 girls and women a day off to other countries to access health care.

smacl

lazygal wrote: »

There is no way the eighth wasn't religiously inspired. Despite attempts to rebrand it as the life equality (what does that even mean, really) amendment, it was a direct result of the interference of religion, specifically the catholic church.

Cynical attempt to re-brand pro-life as something different, that people might confuse with pro-choice? I'll believe the Catholic hierarchy understand the meaning of the word equality when the first female pope brings her kids over for a holiday

lazygal

smacl wrote: »

Cynical attempt to re-brand pro-life as something different, that people might confuse with pro-choice? I'll believe the Catholic hierarchy understand the meaning of the word equality when the first female pope brings her kids over for a holiday

Yeah, it's only been used since the marriage equality referendum so it's a blatant attempt at a re-brand by those opposed to allowing women choice.

Giacomo McGubbin

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Yet I've pointed out in a previous post that Russia is passing legislation that could lead to persecution of non-Orthodox Christians by banning house worship and evangelism.

I'm not convinced that Russia is an enthusiastically Christian country or that Vladimir Putin is doing this for Christian reasons.

I'd rather live in a secular country that values freedom of speech and religion than an Orthodox country that stifles it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Firstly I didn't say any of those things, secondly I don't think you understand the words secularism or orthodoxy.

PopePalpatine

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Firstly I didn't say any of those things, secondly I don't think you understand the words secularism or orthodoxy.

Could you elaborate? I could infer immediately what solodeo meant by those two terms.

Nick Park

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Firstly I didn't say any of those things, secondly I don't think you understand the words secularism or orthodoxy.

Secularism can be used in several ways. But I would interpret it, when used by solodeogloria, as referring to a society where religion is afforded no special privileges and subject to no special restrictions. A level playing field, where the proponents of any religion, and those of none, have equal opportunities to state their beliefs and promote their values.

The way he refers to 'Orthodox' (capitalised and describing a country) would seem to describe a society where a nationalistic church (such as Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox) uses its power and influence to get extra privileges from the State and to discriminate against others. That certainly describes what is going on in Russia right now.

If I am correct in understanding solodeogloria's use of these terms (and he is free to correct me if I have misinterpreted him) then I am in full agreement with him. I would see life in a secular country that respects basic freedoms as vastly preferable to living under Putin's nightmarish vision of a police State that is joined at the hip to the Orthodox Patriarch.