Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Two Sheds

volchitsa wrote: »

Okay fair enough, though tbf page 5 was a bit late to have any effect, but obviously that's not your fault.

Do you agree that the OP, who chose the forum, was clearly writing from an anti-abortion and pro-religion point of view, so that he clearly felt there was a connection?

And that in the context of this thread, whose OP mentions the devil and which is still in the Christianity section, it is perfectly relevant to discuss clerical attempts to prevent a specific abortion?

The op is clearly referring to the Planned Parenthood controversy; that he makes a religious or spiritual link to it is his own business.

But the attempt to somehow make all this relevant to the RCC's involvement in other barely-related events is simply a blatant attempt by some posters to divert from the substance of the op and to make this thread about the attitude of one christian church towards abortion.

I want to see this thread moved to where it is much more relevant; many posters will actively avoid the Religious forum because of the crackpots it attracts.
There's a significant political story evolving around this issue and since the mainstream media are intent on censoring it, it falls to discussion sites like this to cover it.

I'll probably leave this thread because it's headed the same way as the Abortion thread - (I already 'irretrievably' :pac: closed my account in disgust at the way that thread is controlled but managed to get back in.)

If I want to explore the religious quirks of a bunch of backslapping, pro-choice lightweights then I can always head over to politicz.eyee

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

The op is clearly referring to the Planned Parenthood controversy; that he makes a religious or spiritual link to it is his own business.

As it is your business that you appear to think there is no connection between abortion and the Catholic Church.

Though even the slightest knowledge about the history of the development of abortion rights around the world shows that the OPer was a lot closer to reality than you apparently are.

Two Sheds wrote: »

But the attempt to somehow make all this relevant to the RCC's involvement in other barely-related events is simply a blatant attempt by some posters to divert from the substance of the op and to make this thread about the attitude of one christian church towards abortion.

You might have a point if the OP hadn't mentioned the devil and his work, and hadn't been posting from an anti-choice position. There's no "attempt" to make it relevant by other posters, it's a fundamental aspect of the OP. And unless I'm mistaken you're the first anti-choice poster who found anything to object to in that - and that was on page 5, as I said earlier. You weren't the first anti-choice poster to join in, by any means.

Two Sheds wrote: »

I want to see this thread moved to where it is much more relevant; many posters will actively avoid the Religious forum because of the crackpots it attracts.
There's a significant political story evolving around this issue and since the mainstream media are intent on censoring it, it falls to discussion sites like this to cover it.

I'll probably leave this thread because it's headed the same way as the Abortion thread - (I already 'irretrievably' :pac: closed my account in disgust at the way that thread is controlled but managed to get back in.)

If I want to explore the religious quirks of a bunch of backslapping, pro-choice lightweights then I can always head over to politicz.eyee

Sure, you're entitled to protest to the mods. but protesting here that people are off topic talking about catholic practices concerning abortion is you being dishonest.

And of course you could always start a thread in a section you think is better suited. But there's no reason why this one shouldn't stay here, and be about "sanctity of life" in general, is there?

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

As per usual, some posters can't resist turning it into their favourite hobby-horse of attacking the RCC (the real reason they support abortion).

Without fail, some pro-choice posters will pounce on any angle, however tenuous, to drag their pet hate, the RCC, into the discussion. It really is laughable.

But the attempt to somehow make all this relevant to the RCC's involvement in other barely-related events is simply a blatant attempt by some posters to divert from the substance of the op and to make this thread about the attitude of one christian church towards abortion.

Can I ask: who are these bogeymen on this thread that are here to attack the RCC? You use sweeping statements about other users, why the thinly veiled personal attacks, just give us some names.

Asserting that people decided to up and one day flip from being anti-abortionists to pro-abortionists (or whatever topical label you prefer) just to dig at the RCC is beyond laughable, its just pathetic.

robp

frag420 wrote: »

Therein lies the issue, women in Ireland are not afforded this human right! The irony being its usually old supposed virgin men dressed in dresses dictating what a woman can do with her own body!

Lazygal referred to a choice not a right. There is substantial difference. There is no fundamental human right in law to take away the life of a baby. Despite many court cases this point of view has triumphed every time and legalised abortion has only been introduced by other means. The fact that it is permissible in many countries is one of great tragedies of contemporary life.

Btw idiotic language about virgin men dressed in dresses is just unnecessary goading.

Overheal wrote: »

Can I ask: who are these bogeymen on this thread that are here to attack the RCC?

ahem...

volchitsa

robp wrote: »

Lazygal referred to a choice not a right. There is substantial difference. There is no fundamental human right in law to take away the life of a baby. Despite many court cases this point of view has triumphed every time and legalised abortion has only been introduced by other means.

So are you claiming that abortion is actually killing a baby?

Do you see any difference between ending a first or second trimester pregnancy and, say, strangling a 5 year old?

Because I don't think they are at all comparable.

Overheal

robp wrote: »

ahem...

Yes? I know you didn't mean me. Don't equate being appalled about a rape/legal incident to having an agenda to topple a specific, yet prolific church/sect of christianity.

robp

volchitsa wrote: »

So are you claiming that abortion is actually killing a baby?

Do you see any difference between ending a first or second trimester pregnancy and, say, strangling a 5 year old?

Because I don't think they are at all comparable.

The term baby is an informal term and can mean a foetus, neonate, juvenile or even a child like middle aged adult. To make a distinction about what baby means is deflection and semantics. Words have many meaning and it plain silly to be absolutist on something so fluid.

If a thug assaulted a visibly pregnant women and killed her unborn child I don't believe you would use the same line of reasoning in his defence.

Overheal wrote: »

Yes? I know you didn't mean me. Don't equate being appalled about a rape/legal incident to having an agenda to topple a specific, yet prolific church/sect of christianity.

I think you misread my post. The quote I posted by frag420 is a quite literally an outrageous example of church bashing for the sake of church bashing. Its such a predictably fatuous diversion that I am half-surprised boards.ie doesn't automatically block this very text in the way they block curses.

volchitsa

robp wrote: »

The term baby is an informal term and can mean a foetus, neonate, juvenile or even a child like middle aged adult. To make a distinction about what baby means is deflection and semantics. Words have many meaning and it plain silly to be absolutist on something so fluid.

I'm aware of that. The problem is your attempt at conflating different meanings as though they were comparable, hence my question to you.

Your post seemed to say that abortion and baby killing were somehow related. Do you wish to stand over that use of the word or not? If not, perhaps you need to edit that post, which now looks rather dishonest, give your attempt at rowing back immediately.

robp wrote: »

If a thug assaulted a visibly pregnant women and killed her unborn child I don't believe you would use the same line of reasoning in his defence.

Of course I would. He would have assaulted the woman (a crime) and destroyed her fetus (baby if you prefer, but only in the potential sense of the word, like calling a child "little man") against her will. Again, a crime. But he still wouldn't have killed a baby. Would he?

robp

volchitsa wrote: »

If not, perhaps you need to edit that post, which now looks rather dishonest, give your attempt at rowing back immediately.

I never revise the meaning of posts, ever. I only fix typos. Out of respect for the reader.

volchitsa wrote: »

Your post seemed to say that abortion and baby killing were somehow related. Do you wish to stand over that use of the word or not?

As I already said I struggle to see why passing through a vagina is a such a big deal.

volchitsa wrote: »

Of course I would. He would have assaulted the woman (a crime) and destroyed her fetus (baby if you prefer, but only in the potential sense of the word, like calling a child "little man") against her will. Again, a crime. But he still wouldn't have killed a baby. Would he?

Are you really serious that people talk about the baby in recognition of its "potential"? Are people so ontological? Then why do East Asians traditionally count age from conception not birth.

frag420

robp wrote: »

The term baby is an informal term and can mean a foetus, neonate, juvenile or even a child like middle aged adult. To make a distinction about what baby means is deflection and semantics. Words have many meaning and it plain silly to be absolutist on something so fluid.

If a thug assaulted a visibly pregnant women and killed her unborn child I don't believe you would use the same line of reasoning in his defence.


I think you misread my post. The quote I posted by frag420 is a quite literally an outrageous example of church bashing for the sake of church bashing. Its such a predictably fatuous diversion that I am half-surprised boards.ie doesn't automatically block this very text in the way they block curses.

Are you denying old virgin men in dresses are dictating how a woman should use HER body?

Which part did I get wrong? Are priests not virgins? Maybe dresses was a bit "whatever" so let's say robes!! Are you denying that a lot of priests are old?

Please....do tell!

volchitsa

robp wrote: »

I never revise the meaning of posts, ever. I only fix typos. Out of respect for the reader

As I already said I struggle to see why passing through a vagina is a such a big deal.

You may not revise the meaning but you certainly avoid being clear with it. Are you saying that someone having an abortion is morally the same thing as that person killing the baby six months or a year after its birth - yes or no?

As for why passing through a vagina is important, there are a couple of reasons. One is that lots of legal rights are acquired at an arbitrary age, because it's necessary to define a point at which rights accrue. In that respect birth, where we first acquire an identity, is a lot less arbitrary than reaching 18 or 65.

The other is not a claim that the fetus itself changes in any way, but that the woman's body no longer being required to maintain fetal life.

robp wrote: »

Are you really serious that people talk about the baby in recognition of its "potential"? Are people so ontological? Then why do East Asians traditionally count age from conception not birth.

Do they really? How do they know when conception has occurred? I'd be interested in a link to that, to see how it works.

But since the rest of the world doesn't do that, but counts age from birth, I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think these East Asians have discovered a secret the rest of the world hasn't? What does it signify that when a child is born prematurely, we don't count its age from its expected date of birth but from the moment it was born, even if that is three months less?

And yes of course people are talking about potential as though it were reality, (though not consciously philosophizing about metaphysics as you seem to think!) - it's part of the psychological process of becoming a parent. When a couple who are trying to have a child are upset because the woman is not pregnant, how do you explain that pain they feel, if not from their psychological investment in a potential child? Or do you think they have lost an actual child every time? :shock:

Or what about someone who, like a friend of mine, thought she was pregnant, but finally wasn't (it was early menopause)? Again, there never was an embryo, never mind a baby, but the sorrow she felt was overwhelming.

volchitsa

robp wrote: »

Then why do East Asians traditionally count age from conception not birth.

I've looked this up, and they actually don't. They count the age from the New Year before, so the count the age from before the child is even conceived.

Also some places apparently have different calculations according to whether it's a boy or a girl.

So I think that's clearly a fail for you there. Try again?

In your opinion, is terminating a pregnancy morally equivalent to killing a child of a few years old? Yes or no?

Delirium

frag420 wrote: »

Are you denying old virgin men in dresses are dictating how a woman should use HER body?

Which part did I get wrong? Are priests not virgins? Maybe dresses was a bit "whatever" so let's say robes!! Are you denying that a lot of priests are old?

Please....do tell!

MOD NOTE

Less of the 'old virgin men in dresses' mocking/goading please.

Thanks for your attention.

robp

volchitsa wrote: »

You may not revise the meaning but you certainly avoid being clear with it. Are you saying that someone having an abortion is morally the same thing as that person killing the baby six months or a year after its birth - yes or no?

Many in the pro abortion movement thinks so, hence infanticide is available in some pro-choice regimes such as the Netherlands.

volchitsa wrote: »

The other is not a claim that the foetus itself changes in any way, but that the woman's body no longer being required to maintain fetal life.

That is not all all true. Abortion after the point of viability happens everyday. The point of viability changes as medial technology improves and it is expected that at some stage in the future the mother's body will not be needed at any point. Ones dependence on someone else does not define whether you exist or not. We all are dependent on others in our own ways.

volchitsa wrote: »

When a couple who are trying to have a child are upset because the woman is not pregnant, how do you explain that pain they feel, if not from their psychological investment in a potential child? Or do you think they have lost an actual child every time?

You know there is a world a difference between a fertilised and an unfertilised egg. Why are pro abortion folks so scientifically illiterate.

volchitsa

robp wrote: »

Many in the pro abortion movement thinks so, hence infanticide is available in some pro-choice regimes such as the Netherlands.

Did you not see where I asked you for your opinion?
It matters because if I'm discussing the issue with a pro-choice person who also supports infanticide, they will presumably have their own reasons, which I assume are different from yours. So are you going to keep dodging the question, or are you going to answer it?

robp wrote: »

That is not all all true. Abortion after the point of viability happens everyday. The point of viability changes as medial technology improves and it is expected that at some stage in the future the mother's body will not be needed at any point. Ones dependence on someone else does not define whether you exist or not. We all are dependent on others in our own ways.

Are you claiming that babies who are perfectly healthy and past the stage of viability are aborted in the UK for instance? Do you have a source for that?

robp wrote: »

You know there is a world a difference between a fertilised and an unfertilised egg. Why are pro abortion folks so scientifically illiterate.

What has this got to do with my post? You claimed that because parents to be referred to their baby etc that meant it was a baby (after trying the silly East Asian claim!), so I gave an example of people being attached to a non existent baby. But the attachment was still very strong. So emotion alone, or words used, don't prove the existence of a child.

PopePalpatine

robp wrote: »

Many in the pro abortion movement thinks so, hence infanticide is available in some pro-choice regimes such as the Netherlands.

Have you got any proof of that accusation?

That is not all all true. Abortion after the point of viability happens everyday. The point of viability changes as medial technology improves and it is expected that at some stage in the future the mother's body will not be needed at any point. Ones dependence on someone else does not define whether you exist or not. We all are dependent on others in our own ways.

You do realise that other posters have pointed out in this thread the circumstances surrounding third trimester abortions, e.g. a risk of serious illness/death befalling the pregnant woman?

You know there is a world a difference between a fertilised and an unfertilised egg. Why are pro abortion folks so scientifically illiterate.

There's also a world of difference between a blastocyst that's not even implanted onto the uterine wall yet, an embryo a few weeks down the line and a foetus that's viable.

Overheal

robp wrote: »

Many in the pro abortion movement thinks so, hence infanticide is available in some pro-choice regimes such as the Netherlands.

Given the remarkable nature of this goalpost-moving claim (though we are talking about the sanctity of life) I skipped the "where is your proof" bit and what I came up with was this http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/297 which only suggests that there is a sanctioned use of euthanasia when a newborn is terminally ill. Its not as if you can birth your baby, realize its the wrong color and have it terminated before your husband realizes what "working late at the office" really meant.

Two Sheds

Another video released -

Within hours after the TRO was lifted, CMP posted a two-minute video entitled, “Human Capital Trailer,” on YouTube.

CMP released a new video that among other thing showed the StemExpress CEO Joking about receiving entire dead babies from Planned Parenthood (over lunch).

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/court-removes-injunction-center-medical-progress-immediately-releases-8th-shocking-planned-parenthood-video

Overheal

so still no evidence then

The Randy Riverbeast

Overheal wrote: »

so still no evidence then

I'm sure he'll quote the important parts and what they mean any moment now.

That or we'll see him again at the next drive by video posting.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

so still no evidence then

Way to miss the point :rolleyes:

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

Way to miss the point :rolleyes:

care to enlighten us what it is then?

Two Sheds

Delirium wrote: »

care to enlighten us what it is then?

It's a battle for hearts and minds. It's politics, not science.

The 'proof' has been out there for years, in the shape of millions of dead children. What is now required is an awakening of conscience.

Humanity been through this inhumanity before in various guises - slavery, pogroms, child labour, racism, magdalene laundries ...

Overheal

You sound as if doctors don't already disassociate with their patients in order to do their jobs more effectively. Is that somehow evil?

The Randy Riverbeast

Was there a protest to remove funding from IFPA today in Dublin?

robdonn

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Was there a protest to remove funding from IFPA today in Dublin?

Hundreds of Pro-Lifers in Dublin Call for Irish Planned Parenthood to be De-Funded

The pro-life group, Youth Defence, told today’s protest that Planned Parenthood’s Irish member, the IFPA has serious questions to answer and that taxpayer funding should be withdrawn from the organisation immediately.

“We know that the IFPA’s website boasts of being a member of Planned Parenthood but they have not condemned the horror being revealed by these videos which show Planned Parenthood are harvesting and selling aborted baby parts,” said Clare Molloy of Youth Defence. She said that the videos were ‘sickening’ and that Planned Parenthood’s actions were ‘depraved and inhuman’.

“The IFPA have serious questions to answer. Do they support the sale of aborted baby parts? If not, will they condemn the actions of their affiliate, Planned Parenthood USA? Will the condemn the hideous practise of cutting into a baby’s face to harvest the brain, while the baby’s heart is still beating? Will they join every decent person in saying that it is simply revolting to hear Planned Parenthood executives say that they will crush the baby being aborted in a way that will ensure organs are left intact for sale?”

“The IFPA has received substantial funding from Planned Parenthood ($146,807 US in 2008 alone) – did some of that money come from harvesting organs of aborted babies? How long has the IFPA been aware of this horrific practice?” she said.

Overheal

Well of course they refuse to make a statement and/or condemn Planned Parenthood of " harvesting and selling aborted baby parts" etc. *because it isn't happening*

Kev W

Overheal wrote: »

Well of course they refuse to make a statement and/or condemn Planned Parenthood of " harvesting and selling aborted baby parts" etc. *because it isn't happening*

All this nonsense with the videos and baseless accusations really is just a longform version of "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Utterly pathetic behavior from the anti-choicers.

Overheal

"Will the condemn the hideous practise of cutting into a baby’s face to harvest the brain, while the baby’s heart is still beating?"

serious question, where did THAT come from?!

Dumb states: "we're going to defund you for something we think you're doing but we have no empirical evidence."

Dumb group: "we want you defunded for not disavowing the organization that hasn't been proven to be doing anything wrong"

Two Sheds

The hypocrisy of Planned Parenthood is coming to the surface -

Planned Parenthood and its media and political allies have tried in vain to make the story about CMP’s tactics. But those same organizations and individuals have long sung the praises of undercover “sting” operations conducted by NARAL Pro-Choice America inside of pro-life pregnancy centers.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/abortion-enthusiasts-were-undercover-video-they-were-against-it