Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: john on March 31, 2016, 09:22:30 AM
-
Can we take the fuss about Donald Trump's comments up and run with them. I know there are people on this site on either side of the abortion issue and I am interested to hear what yaal have to say.
Trump said something like, women who have abortions should be jailed, although he later appears to back track.
I'm not talking about the legal position here in the UK but the "moral" viewpoint.
If abortion is wrong/illegal/immoral, who is to blame and what should be done to them? Is it the mother, the father or just the abortionist?
-
Trump is insane in my opinion, heaven help the world if he becomes president. :o
As for abortion, a woman should have the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, until the foetus is viable. Far better to try to avoid getting pregnant in the first place if she doesn't want a child.
-
If abortion is wrong/illegal/immoral, who is to blame and what should be done to them? Is it the mother, the father or just the abortionist?
Is abortion the issue or does it start far further back than that? In my view there are very different types of abortion, some of which are valid and some not. For instance, the most obvious type of 'valid' abortion is in a case where the continuation of the pregnancy puts the very life of the mother at risk. Another, slightly less definitive case would be pregnancy following rape - some women choose to carry the child despite the memories that can engender.
Unfortunately, abortion can be used as a way of avoiding responsibility for one's own actions. Whether or not the result of that action is technically viable, I find this kind of abortion morally repugnant - as do many people - both men and women - I know.
I've used this example before, but can't remember whether I've used it here or just on other forums. A friend of ours was admitted to hospital some years ago for a D&C following a particularly traumatic miscarriage (her third in 5 years). Now, the circumstances of the events that transpired left a lot of questions about ward and patient management, but it also begged questions about abortion in the first place. At the opposite end of the ward was a 17-year old who was in for her 3rd abortion (the details were known because the lass was well known in the town - and not just for her fertility(!!); she was an extremely good musician who had given a number of public recitals before she was 12). Perhaps the biggest question asked was to do with the father(s) of her potential children. After all, whilst it is possible now to get treatment that uses donated sperm, is it likely that someone who has gone to all that effort and expense is then going to abort the result?
I'm afraid that the law as it stands leaves everything on the head of the woman. The man involved is rarely involved in the legal side of things (though he may have 'ordered' the woman to have an abortion in order to cover up his own failings).
-
Trump is insane in my opinion, heaven help the world if he becomes president. :o
I think "heaven help the world" whichever of the two front-runners becomes President - but that is sort of beside the point!!
As for abortion, a woman should have the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, until the foetus is viable. Far better to try to avoid getting pregnant in the first place if she doesn't want a child.
Your first and second sentences seem to be contradictory, Floo. Surely, the prime right of a woman should be that she can choose not to become pregnant in the first place, but once the choice to act in a way that can produce a embryo has been made, the embryo takes precedent.
-
I think "heaven help the world" whichever of the two front-runners becomes President - but that is sort of beside the point!!
Your first and second sentences seem to be contradictory, Floo. Surely, the prime right of a woman should be that she can choose not to become pregnant in the first place, but once the choice to act in a way that can produce a embryo has been made, the embryo takes precedent.
Sometimes contraception fails, only one of my birth children was planned. But I decided to carry on with the pregnancies. However, if a woman definitely doesn't want a child, it is far better to terminate a pregnancy than bring an unwanted child into this world.
-
Sometimes contraception fails, only one of my birth children was planned. But I decided to carry on with the pregnancies. However, if a woman definitely doesn't want a child, it is far better to terminate a pregnancy than bring an unwanted child into this world.
Floo, I accept that contraception can fail - which is why one important element of 'contraception' is self-control!!
-
Floo, I accept that contraception can fail - which is why one important element of 'contraception' is self-control!!
So contraception is fine albeit sometimes fallible, but in those cases where it fails, the woman shouldn't have been having sex in the first place.
Can you see anything wrong with this?
-
Yes but if the woman shouldn't have been having sex in the first place, should she be jailed Hopey?
-
Floo, I accept that contraception can fail - which is why one important element of 'contraception' is self-control!!
What meaning don't have sex?
-
What meaning don't have sex?
I protest, yer 'onor!
-
Some idiots think sex is for procreation only, but not for pleasure. ::)
-
Over fifty years, since the subject was actually talked about, I have noticed that those who would deny girls and women abortions have not been in that position themselves.
-
Well said SusanDoris! Or not had someone close to them, eg daughter, son's girlfriend, in that position. It is amazing how attitudes change when that happens - I've actually witnessed that in a couple of friends who had previously been very anti-abortion and quite judgemental about people who had abortions. What a difference when it was them or theirs in difficulty.
I don't think Hope was saying ''Don't have sex''; that would hardly make sense for a married person to say. So I don't actually understand what he meant by having self control. Contraception does fail sometimes, no amount of self control would have prevented the pregnancy. In many cases people often, or usually, do carry on and have a baby, if their circumstances are secure and they are well, they accept it and are quite happy when the baby is born. However for some people an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is a disaster - so what do they do then?
Who actually actually likes the idea of abortion? I doubt there are many but it is a safety valve. In the 'old days' the alternatives were often too terrible to contemplate.
-
What is Trump's policy on the "morning after pill" ? Shouldn't numbers of abortions be falling rapidly since the availability of this pill ? - they aren't though.
-
I looked up what Trump said as I hadn't heard it before (despite watching, or half watching, a programme about his presidential campaign last night):
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-lewandowski-they-re-destroying-very-good-person-n548036
It seems that what he said, when pushed, was that if abortion was against the law, it should be punishable. He didn't say it should be against the law, rather he said that he was ''pro-life with exceptions''. Without reading it back I think he also said that 'the woman was the victim' in cases of unwanted pregnancy.
I don't know his views on the morning after pill and, like you, am surprised it hasn't stopped more abortions taking place. Maybe people leave it too long, thinking they are safe. Or hoping they are safe.
Found this, not about Trump but reflecting the opinions of many (not all) prominent Republicans. It's from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/opinion/the-republican-conception-of-conception.html?_r=0
-
What meaning don't have sex?
In a way, yes. Either take sufficient precautions to avoid the pregnancy in the first place - whilst individual methods of contrception have fail-rates, combining methods seem t have infinitesimal fail-rates - or be willing to accept the consequences that nature works with.
Here again, I'd put the majority of blame on men, rater than women, since from what the various medical journals I've read over the years indicate (and remember I was involved in helping reorganise the library at the Nursing Campus in Pokhara for 3 years during the 90s, as well as having access to my wife's nursing magazines in the 90s and 00s) the real issue is the fact that men seem to assume that women will take all the precautions, rather than taking their fair share.
-
Some idiots think sex is for procreation only, but not for pleasure. ::)
Whereas many ordinary people seem to think that it is only for pleasure and ignore the natural consequences that can occur.
-
Whereas many ordinary people seem to think that it is only for pleasure and ignore the natural consequences that can occur.
It is only for pleasure if you don't want kids, or have finished procreating. As I have said many times there is NOTHING wrong with sexual activity, gay or straight, in an adult consensual relationship providing you are using proper precautions. Should a woman think she could have got pregnant by accident, there is always the morning after pill, which is better than an abortion.
-
Whereas many ordinary people seem to think that it is only for pleasure and ignore the natural consequences that can occur.
Sexual behaviour in homo sapiens is very complex. It is possible to argue that if it is for pleasure then the natural consequence of coitus is pleasure.
Although biologically the role of sex is reproduction, it is difficult to argue that that is the primary purpose of sex in humans. There are many differences between human sex and that of other species. As a species, homo sapiens is relatively infertile - even where conception is sought and coitus takes place under favourable circumstances, conception may not occur. Ovulation is an event which is signalled in other species with specific and unmistakable signals from the females to receptive males. In some species females can retain and store sperm and release it at ovulation.
In homo sapiens ovulation is hidden - there may be signs that some women observe when they ovulate but by no means are all women necessarily aware of them and they are invisible to men. Coitus in humans is totally independent of fertility - there are many women for whom the post-menopausal stage of their lives are times of great sexual activity and fulfilment. If the primary purpose of coitus is reproduction then this activity is meaningless.
My own view of the biology of human sexuality is that it is related to the size of the human brain. A major difference between humans and other animals is that the human brain is very large and takes many years to grow. To accommodate this growth human offspring have a childhood that is very long - a dozen years or so to sexual capability and then a further period (adolescence) before final full maturity. For all this time, the young humans must be protected and cherished. This is more effectively accomplished if there are two parents involved. Without some incentive there would be nothing to keep the male parent from staying around.
The primary purpose of sex in homo sapiens is to maintain the pair bond by means of repeated reward, Hope ..... by pleasure.
-
Is abortion the issue or does it start far further back than that? In my view there are very different types of abortion, some of which are valid and some not. For instance, the most obvious type of 'valid' abortion is in a case where the continuation of the pregnancy puts the very life of the mother at risk. Another, slightly less definitive case would be pregnancy following rape - some women choose to carry the child despite the memories that can engender.
Unfortunately, abortion can be used as a way of avoiding responsibility for one's own actions. Whether or not the result of that action is technically viable, I find this kind of abortion morally repugnant - as do many people - both men and women - I know.
I've used this example before, but can't remember whether I've used it here or just on other forums. A friend of ours was admitted to hospital some years ago for a D&C following a particularly traumatic miscarriage (her third in 5 years). Now, the circumstances of the events that transpired left a lot of questions about ward and patient management, but it also begged questions about abortion in the first place. At the opposite end of the ward was a 17-year old who was in for her 3rd abortion (the details were known because the lass was well known in the town - and not just for her fertility(!!); she was an extremely good musician who had given a number of public recitals before she was 12). Perhaps the biggest question asked was to do with the father(s) of her potential children. After all, whilst it is possible now to get treatment that uses donated sperm, is it likely that someone who has gone to all that effort and expense is then going to abort the result?
I'm afraid that the law as it stands leaves everything on the head of the woman. The man involved is rarely involved in the legal side of things (though he may have 'ordered' the woman to have an abortion in order to cover up his own failings).
Hope, you like me, are, male and therefore, unless you are the father of the child, your opinions in the matter of abortion are of absolutely no consequence whatsoever, especially those based upon yout religious belief.
-
Hope, you like me, are, male and therefore, unless you are the father of the child, your opinions in the matter of abortion are of absolutely no consequence whatsoever, especially those based upon yout religious belief.
Frustratingly though, questions of what constitutes human life will always be with us.
-
Frustratingly though, questions of what constitutes human life will always be with us.
Frustrating only for those who think that they have more right to be part of the decision to abort than the mother.
-
Abortion is always a difficult one.
A foetus is a potential person and people who object to abortion try and draw attention to this.
Just because it isn't their body doesn't mean that the potential human shouldn't be represented, valued and another POV put forward.
I'm not actually anti - abortion, I think the ramifications of making it illegal are to extreme and in some cases I think it is necessary. ( usually medical ones). I wouldn't support prolife because I think they do more harm than good because every woman and her situation is unique. They don't allow for individual cases.
On the other hand, I don't really agree with abortion because I think there are many steps that could have been taken to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, and as Floo points out there is the morning after pill.
Fortunately I've never needed to have one, I think though at the end of the day the choice has to be the woman's. It takes two to make a baby though so if she decides to keep it, the man should also have responsibilities.
I think banning it altogether is too inhumane, I don't like what I see in countries where it is banned, even if they do reckon it's allowed in extreme cases.
I suppose I disapprove of it on one level, but on another I recognise making it illegal has consequences I find unacceptable.
I suppose my veiw isn't " all or nothing"
Sometimes a woman needs to have an abortion and it's the only humane thing to do, making it illegal isn't acceptable IMO .
-
My daughter lived in Japan for a few years and during that time entered a serious relationship with a Japanese man. She told me that when she decided to use oral contraceptive her boyfriend was horrified and raised an objection on the basis of the damage that pharmaceutical birth control would do to her body. Apparently, she said, abortion was the dominant method of birth control.
I have no idea whether or not the Japanese approach to abortion is really as casual as it appears from this account.
I think that abortion is a very serious and difficult business to negotiate. I do not like the prospect of casually destroying a potential life (particularly when I think of the joy my own children and grandchildren have given me) but I do respect the right of any woman to control her own fertility and to seek abortion. It should be the decision of the woman herself, the "rights" and opinions of other people who may be involved may be factors considered in her decision-making but not to have any determinating power.
I am horrified at the idea that any woman should be forced to carry to term any child she does not want...
... and the fact that fairy tale accounts of the world and of life should be the justification of forcing her into this action.
-
I am horrified at the idea that any woman should be forced to carry to term any child she does not want...
... and the fact that fairy tale accounts of the world and of life should be the justification of forcing her into this action.
A resounding hear, hear from me. Tragically, the religion touts will not take their hands off their ears to hear it. >:(
-
Can we take the fuss about Donald Trump's comments up and run with them. I know there are people on this site on either side of the abortion issue and I am interested to hear what yaal have to say.
Trump said something like, women who have abortions should be jailed, although he later appears to back track.
I'm not talking about the legal position here in the UK but the "moral" viewpoint.
If abortion is wrong/illegal/immoral, who is to blame and what should be done to them? Is it the mother, the father or just the abortionist?
All women should have the absolute right to an abortion before the foetus is viable. Far better done in the first few weeks of pregnancy if possible.
-
My daughter lived in Japan for a few years and during that time entered a serious relationship with a Japanese man. She told me that when she decided to use oral contraceptive her boyfriend was horrified and raised an objection on the basis of the damage that pharmaceutical birth control would do to her body. Apparently, she said, abortion was the dominant method of birth control.
I have no idea whether or not the Japanese approach to abortion is really as casual as it appears from this account.
I think that abortion is a very serious and difficult business to negotiate. I do not like the prospect of casually destroying a potential life (particularly when I think of the joy my own children and grandchildren have given me) but I do respect the right of any woman to control her own fertility and to seek abortion. It should be the decision of the woman herself, the "rights" and opinions of other people who may be involved may be factors considered in her decision-making but not to have any determinating power.
I am horrified at the idea that any woman should be forced to carry to term any child she does not want...
... and the fact that fairy tale accounts of the world and of life should be the justification of forcing her into this action.
I think it's when abortion becomes used instead of contraception that I object to.
An abortion isn't exactly good for your body.
Tbh I think if women regularly use abortion instead of taking precautions then they should be fined.
-
I think it's when abortion becomes used instead of contraception that I object to.
An abortion isn't exactly good for your body.
Tbh I think if women regularly use abortion instead of taking precautions then they should be fined.
I agree, any woman using abortion as a means of contraception is crazy.
-
I agree, any woman using abortion as a means of contraception is crazy.
I agree. I wonder whether the abortions I referred to in my comment about Japan are hormone injections (or similar) given during the first few weeks of pregnancy which cause the embryo to detach and be flushed out through the vagina, rather than some invasive physical act.
-
A bit like the morning after pill, HH. I understand that abortions performed in this country are now generally medical rather than surgical but years ago, they were always surgical. It certainly seems drastic to use abortion as contraception when it isn't difficult for most people to avoid pregnancy. There are methods other than the pill which are quite effective; if a couple want to avoid having a baby, they generally manage.
-
Over fifty years, since the subject was actually talked about, I have noticed that those who would deny girls and women abortions have not been in that position themselves.
I've hear at least as much opposition from women as I have from men, Susan.
-
Lesdt anyone get concerned that poists have gone missing, please note that I have removed 2 posts that I've just posted because they were almost word for word what I'd written earlier in the thread - mostly in regard to the lack of acceptance of responsibility by men.
-
Unfortunately, there are those who seem to think that it is only for the latter, with no consideration of the possibility of the former.
If you don't want kids, or you have completed your family, then you only have sex for pleasure, hopefully ensuring you are taking proper precautions to ensure you don't have anymore. I was sterilised at 26 as I didn't want any more birth children.
-
Hope, you like me, are, male and therefore, unless you are the father of the child, your opinions in the matter of abortion are of absolutely no consequence whatsoever, especially those based upon yout religious belief.
That, of course assumes that any of my opinions are based on religious thinking, and not on acceptance of responsibility for consequences. As for the assumption that men have no right to an opinion in this issue, it is so pathetic a belief that I struggle to believe that even you would hold such a belief. After all, women aren't wholly responsible for a pregnancy; unless through IVF or some other artificial means, there are always going to be two people who are responsible - a man and a woman and they BOTH need to take the responsibility for their actions. Sadly, society seems happy to allow men to shrug off their side of that.
-
Frustrating only for those who think that they have more right to be part of the decision to abort than the mother.
I'd have thought that all members of society, of whichever gender, have both an equal right and equal duty to be involved in the debate. Perhaps you want to place all the responsibility on the woman.
-
I wouldn't support prolife because I think they do more harm than good because every woman and her situation is unique. They don't allow for individual cases.
Many do, Rose. That is, in a way, the complicating issue as very few seem to want to ban it completely.
-
I'd have thought that all members of society, of whichever gender, have both an equal right and equal duty to be involved in the debate. Perhaps you want to place all the responsibility on the woman.
Whilst of course both men and women should take responsibility for safe sex, it is sadly the woman who bears the brunt when things go wrong.
-
A resounding hear, hear from me. Tragically, the religion touts will not take their hands off their ears to hear it. >:(
Yet many of the 'religious touts' as you call them are the ones who are espousing a greater acceptance of responsibility of their actions by men. Leaving the decision 100% to women simply excerbates this existing abdication of responsibility on the part of many men.
-
All women should have the absolute right to an abortion before the foetus is viable. Far better done in the first few weeks of pregnancy if possible.
And, of course, gives the man responsibility a huge 'get-out' provision if the responsibility is the woman's completely. I've always understood you to argue that we all ought to accept responsibility for (and consequences of) our own actions, rather than handing them over to others.
-
And, of course, gives the man responsibility a huge 'get-out' provision if the responsibility is the woman's completely. I've always understood you to argue that we all ought to accept responsibility for (and consequences of) our own actions, rather than handing them over to others.
No man can tell a woman what to do with her body, even her spouse.
-
No man can tell a woman what to do with her body, even her spouse.
That assumes 'authority'; I'm talking about sharing responsibility and talking as equals. I realise that society, despite its claims otherwise, tends to observe such a concept in word, as opposed to action.
-
I certainly believe family planning should be the responsibility of both parties, Hope, but unfortunately it is often all left to the woman. As the woman bears the child and, before that, carries it for nine months and then goes through labour, it's not unreasonable for women to feel that they should have the last word on the subject. It's funny to think that not that many years ago no woman could be sterilised without her husband's agreement and the same applied to a married woman wanting an abortion. Whilst it isn't a very nice idea for women to have terminations of pregnancy/sterilisation without their husbands knowing, some are desperate and we don't want to go back to the 'dark ages' when women risked their health, mentally and physically, and lived in dire poverty because they had to bear a child.
-
I certainly believe family planning should be the responsibility of both parties, Hope, but unfortunately it is often all left to the woman. As the woman bears the child and, before that, carries it for nine months and then goes through labour, it's not unreasonable for women to feel that they should have the last word on the subject.
This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Even in a first world nation in 2016 pregnancy is an often uncomfortable and can be a downright dangerous business. At the best of times it causes health issues which can be uncomfortable and unpleasant (mothers here - tell me that I'm factually incorrect in this statement!); at the worst of times it can be life-threatening. Although the rates nowadays are tiny (in absolute terms; even more so as compared to earlier historical periods) pregnancy and childbirth can still be fatal. It doesn't happen in the way that it used to but it still happens. That makes pregnancy-to-term a serious business.
It takes two people to make a baby; due to the exigencies of biology only one of those two people has to carry and give birth to the child. Like you, I think it's not at all unreasonable to expect the most directly interested party to have the lion's share of the say in what happens to their body. Or doesn't. There's no equality here. If it was as equal as choosing a new carpet or what takeaway to order it would be a different matter. It isn't.
-
That, of course assumes that any of my opinions are based on religious thinking, and not on acceptance of responsibility for consequences. As for the assumption that men have no right to an opinion in this issue, it is so pathetic a belief that I struggle to believe that even you would hold such a belief. After all, women aren't wholly responsible for a pregnancy; unless through IVF or some other artificial means, there are always going to be two people who are responsible - a man and a woman and they BOTH need to take the responsibility for their actions. Sadly, society seems happy to allow men to shrug off their side of that.
Honestly Hope, your extremely selective blindness is beyond belief!
My post, which you quoted in full, states:
Hope, you like me, are, male and therefore, unless you are the father of the child, your opinions in the matter of abortion are of absolutely no consequence whatsoever.
Can you read it now?
-
I'd have thought that all members of society, of whichever gender, have both an equal right and equal duty to be involved in the debate. Perhaps you want to place all the responsibility on the woman.
In the debate - yes.
In the case of a specific pregnant woman - NO!
-
That assumes 'authority'; I'm talking about sharing responsibility and talking as equals. I realise that society, despite its claims otherwise, tends to observe such a concept in word, as opposed to action.
Each person, male or female, must have authority over their own body.
-
Each person, male or female, must have authority over their own body.
All very well in a society where everyone is both individual and totally independent of all others - but thankfully we don't live a society where individuals are little islands on their own - yet. What is more, men already tend to regard themselves as not requiring to take responsibility for others. Do you really believe that reinforcing this attitude in this way is helpful to society?
-
In the debate - yes.
In the case of a specific pregnant woman - NO!
So, the debate is totally divorced from real life? Are you suggesting that MPs, when debating - say - an education bill might just as well talk about the cost of rice? Or when debating an NHS-related bill, they discuss who ought to be the next James Bond actor?
Debate about moral and ethical issues - such as abortion, divorce, marriage, even education and healthcare should not shy away from challenging the status quo, even if that means your hearing ideas that you disagree with.
-
So, the debate is totally divorced from real life? Are you suggesting that MPs, when debating - say - an education bill might just as well talk about the cost of rice? Or when debating an NHS-related bill, they discuss who ought to be the next James Bond actor?
Debate about moral and ethical issues - such as abortion, divorce, marriage, even education and healthcare should not shy away from challenging the status quo, even if that means your hearing ideas that you disagree with.
What a load of old bollox - your response has no connection to my post - and you know it! You always come up with this kind of diversionary misdirectional crap when you know that you are losing an argument.
-
Honestly Hope, your extremely selective blindness is beyond belief!
My post, which you quoted in full, states:
Hope, you like me, are, male and therefore, unless you are the father of the child, your opinions in the matter of abortion are of absolutely no consequence whatsoever.
Can you read it now?
Actually, I can and did read it, Owl. I believe that you have (mischieviously and intentionally) left off the final section of your original post, which says " ..., especially those based upon yout religious belief". Or are yo unable to read your own post?
As for whether or not 'you are the father of the child', that is a straw man argument. If you think about it, few if any of the MPs who took part in the original abortion legislation debate - as wll as subsequent debates - has been the 'parent of the child'. After all, since when was parliamentary debate based on an individual case; since when was a discussion on an internet forum based on a specific case? Debates, of the sort we have here are wide-ranging and deal with principles not specific individuals (unless a poster actually invites opinions on such specifics - such as we see on some of the 'technology help' threads.)
-
You always come up with this kind of diversionary misdirectional crap when you know that you are losing an argument.
You mean like you come up with the diversionary tactics of mischieviously and deliberately mis-quoting your own posts?
Grow up Owl and begin to smell the coffee.
-
Actually, I can and did read it, Owl. I believe that you have (mischieviously and intentionally) left off the final section of your original post, which says " ..., especially those based upon yout religious belief". Or are yo unable to read your own post?
As for whether or not 'you are the father of the child', that is a straw man argument. If you think about it, few if any of the MPs who took part in the original abortion legislation debate - as wll as subsequent debates - has been the 'parent of the child'. After all, since when was parliamentary debate based on an individual case; since when was a discussion on an internet forum based on a specific case? Debates, of the sort we have here are wide-ranging and deal with principles not specific individuals (unless a poster actually invites opinions on such specifics - such as we see on some of the 'technology help' threads.)
I am talking personal relationships; you are introducing politics and any other crap to divert from your unwarranted intrusion for religious purposes in the personal lives of women.
When you come up with a comment that is apposite to the thread I will answer you, until then . . .
-
I am talking personal relationships; you are introducing politics and any other crap to divert from your unwarranted intrusion for religious purposes in the personal lives of women.
When you come up with a comment that is apposite to the thread I will answer you, until then . . .
Actually, I started off talking about human relationships and their importace to society when responding to Floo and a few others. I then understood your posts to be taking us off down the political arena, so acquiesced with what I thought you wanted us to do.
As for 'unwarranted intrusion for religious purposes', it was you who introduced the religious elemnt into the debate, not me. I can, of course, provide plenty of religious arguments as to why men and women ought to be living in harmonious relationship with each other, but hadn't made that leap till this post.
-
Actually, I started off talking about human relationships and their importace to society when responding to Floo and a few others. I then understood your posts to be taking us off down the political arena, so acquiesced with what I thought you wanted us to do.
As for 'unwarranted intrusion for religious purposes', it was you who introduced the religious elemnt into the debate, not me. I can, of course, provide plenty of religious arguments as to why men and women ought to be living in harmonious relationship with each other, but hadn't made that leap till this post.
I wouldn't use the Bible as an example of harmonious relationships if I were you. Wasn't the sky fairy supposed to have got Mary in the family way when she was engaged to Joseph?
-
I wouldn't use the Bible as an example of harmonious relationships if I were you.
Are such stories and records necessarily intended to always be positive examples, Floo? Negatives can be equally powerful as lessons.
Wasn't the sky fairy supposed to have got Mary in the family way when she was engaged to Joseph?
Don't know who or what you mean by the 'sky fairy', so I'm afraid that I can't answer this question. It's a term that I've heard you suse before, but only you. Is it some sort of 'Floo' family legend?
-
I use the term "SKY FAIRY" a lot too. It seems to me to be an appropriate phrase to describe a magical being who allegedly lives somewhere out there, who can do magic only some people can see.
-
I use the term "SKY FAIRY" a lot too. It seems to me to be an appropriate phrase to describe a magical being who allegedly lives somewhere out there, who can do magic only some people can see.
Quite! :)
-
Quite! :)
It doesn't really work particularly well given what Christians actually believe. 'Imaginary friend' is a better one when used in relation to Jesus.
-
Are such stories and records necessarily intended to always be positive examples, Floo? Negatives can be equally powerful as lessons.
Don't know who or what you mean by the 'sky fairy', so I'm afraid that I can't answer this question. It's a term that I've heard you suse before, but only you. Is it some sort of 'Floo' family legend?
You don't have to be a genius to know I sometimes refer to god as the sky fairy! ::)
-
I don't think that we should take Mr T too seriously. By taking him seriously John has just smelled the Trump!
-
You don't have to be a genius to know I sometimes refer to god as the sky fairy! ::)
I think that because of the massed ranks of Cherubim and Seraphim and whatnot with wings on their backs, and his habit of demanding appropriate adoration he is the King of the Fairies (in the Sky).
-
I think that because of the massed ranks of Cherubim and Seraphim and whatnot with wings on their backs, and his habit of demanding appropriate adoration he is the King of the Fairies (in the Sky).
Yep! ;D
-
Abortion is a subject that certainly seems to polarise people.
I find it hard to be black and white over this. I think I'm more about greys.
Is a foetus a living human being? Does it have a conscience? Who knows? Maybe an egg/sperm are also part of the development process. Does that mean that birth control is murder? It might sound ridiculous but how do you know for sure?
Would you force a woman who was raped and impregnated by her father, or a woman whose heart would blow out during labour, to deliver those babies? Wouldn't you think that abortion is justifiable or are there no circumstances in your view where an abortion is justifiable?
"Abortion" is one of those words we have used so frequently that I sometimes wonder whether it's lost its meaning. Perhaps it's a euphemism for some kind of "right" or political "cause" instead of being the very private thing that it is.
I do think that it's lost its power to suggest what it means, the cessation of a life. I don't believe in a soul but there is living tissue and unlike a cancer which will reproduce one type of cell in the wrong place, the human embryo has only one destiny...to become a human being that will become a benefit or a liability to its society.
So........I really think it's impossible to have a satisfactory answer to the abortion issue.
I'm no fan of killing and I don't think we can be certain that any foetus under a certain number of weeks old isn't alive.
Having said that, I also feel that a woman's body is her own and if she feels it in her best interests to have an abortion then she should be provided with safe, supportive and non-judgmental advice and guidance. This, of course, means leaving spiritual "guidance" out of it. Well, for those that don't want spiritual guidance, anyway.
-
It's not a debate that I wade into very often simply because it is so personal, so individual. I've never had a termination but I have had three children and from very early on I knew I was carrying a new life, even though at the stage I also knew it was a life that could just fade away very quickly. Had I not wanted those pregnancies to proceed maybe I would have viewed it differently. After all we allow termination of foetuses that are of the same gestation as babies that are afforded burials as stillbirths. This suggests that we've now reached s point where we react with as much compassion as we can to the individual.
I know how risky pregnancy and birth are - I had to go through emergency surgery - and for that reason alone no woman should ever have to go through a pregnancy that she doesn't want. At the same time I do feel for men who want pregnancies to proceed when the woman doesn't and has a termination anyway. And I know some women are forced into terminations by abusive partners or misguided parents and that distresses me.
The potential for getting it wrong is huge and there is moral confusion aplenty. But I think we make the best of it most of the time, given how complex it is.
-
It doesn't really work particularly well given what Christians actually believe. 'Imaginary friend' is a better one when used in relation to Jesus.
A.N. Wilson actually wrote as much in one of his novels (The Vicar of Sorrows - well worth reading), although he has changed his mind for a third time since.
-
I haven't read that, Shaker. I remember reading A N Wilson in the late nineties, he was very popular at that time. There was one book I read about St Paul which was awful, imo. Other things I read by him always gave me the impression that he was a bit seedy.
I felt quite moved by what both Khatru and Rhiannon wrote, above. Abortion really is a quite difficult subject, I doubt many take the step lightly but I am glad we are allowed to have them in this country.
-
Yes, it would be far worse for us not to have them as we do. Abortion rights are very important. But it is a very complex issue. And most women who have terminations do know that, and still have them anyway.
-
I haven't read that, Shaker. I remember reading A N Wilson in the late nineties, he was very popular at that time. There was one book I read about St Paul which was awful, imo. Other things I read by him always gave me the impression that he was a bit seedy.
I felt quite moved by what both Khatru and Rhiannon wrote, above. Abortion really is a quite difficult subject, I doubt many take the step lightly but I am glad we are allowed to have them in this country.
I also doubt too many women would undergo an abortion lightly.
-
I haven't read that, Shaker. I remember reading A N Wilson in the late nineties, he was very popular at that time. There was one book I read about St Paul which was awful, imo. Other things I read by him always gave me the impression that he was a bit seedy.
"The old fogey as Platonic Guardian". Actually, I quite liked the Paul book - gave me a less jaundiced opinion of him (perhaps Floo should give it a try :) )
Back to the matter in hand.....
-
It's not a debate that I wade into very often simply because it is so personal, so individual. I've never had a termination but I have had three children and from very early on I knew I was carrying a new life, even though at the stage I also knew it was a life that could just fade away very quickly.
This is where the Catholic Church starts to argue philosophy about 'ensoulment' and the question of where individuality begins. The position has changed since Thomas Aquinas. Most of these arguments have been developed by men, and I think that when it comes to laying down the law about such things, this is the time that men, and Catholic priests in particular, should shut the fuck up. Any comments I make here are otherwise offered with a degree of diffidence.
-
The thing about abortion is that some people pontificate about it - including plenty of women - but change their minds very quickly if they or theirs are in a spot. I can think of two women, my age, both Christian, who had abortions. They didn't really want to but one would have had to cope with a baby on her own and felt she couldn't and the other did it because she was frightened of her mum. I also know another woman who wanted her daughter to have one, she was furious about the girl being pregnant, but it was too late for that and the baby was born (of course, all the drama ended then and the attention was on the baby).
I honestly think some people cannot put themselves into anyone else's shoes, or else they come up with examples of people who manage quite well with an unplanned baby which is not helpful.
There was a case recently in Northern Ireland where a young woman faced prosecution for procuring her own abortion - she bought the abortion pills online. Someone grassed her up, shame on them. I couldn't believe it went to court, what was the point? I also didn't realise the law hadn't changed there, thought it was the same as here.
-
There was a case recently in Northern Ireland where a young woman faced prosecution for procuring her own abortion - she bought the abortion pills online. Someone grassed her up, shame on them.
I remember that - it was only a few weeks ago. The most disgraceful aspect of the case is that the poor young woman was shopped by alleged 'friends.'
I couldn't believe it went to court, what was the point? I also didn't realise the law hadn't changed there, thought it was the same as here.
Nope. Those kinds of things are devolved to the NI Assembly - which is why NI is the only place in the British Isles (never mind the UK) without equal marriage.
-
She was prosecuted at 21 and given a one year suspended sentence, but she aborted aged 19. It was her housemates who shopped her and I suppose they may not have been 'friends' but I do not know what they hoped to achieve. I would have thought, even those who are against abortion, wouldn't report someone to the police. That is totally lacking in any kindness.
I hope we don't hear of anything like that happening again.
-
The thing about abortion is that some people pontificate about it - including plenty of women - but change their minds very quickly if they or theirs are in a spot. I can think of two women, my age, both Christian, who had abortions. They didn't really want to but one would have had to cope with a baby on her own and felt she couldn't and the other did it because she was frightened of her mum. I also know another woman who wanted her daughter to have one, she was furious about the girl being pregnant, but it was too late for that and the baby was born (of course, all the drama ended then and the attention was on the baby).
I honestly think some people cannot put themselves into anyone else's shoes, or else they come up with examples of people who manage quite well with an unplanned baby which is not helpful.
There was a case recently in Northern Ireland where a young woman faced prosecution for procuring her own abortion - she bought the abortion pills online. Someone grassed her up, shame on them. I couldn't believe it went to court, what was the point? I also didn't realise the law hadn't changed there, thought it was the same as here.
Yes there is another one now where a mother is facing jail after helping her daughter.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/second-northern-irish-woman-to-stand-trial-on-abortion-charges-a6972726.html
-
Amazingly Marie Stopes has a website and base in Belfast or at least a tel number ( special tab on website for Irish women)
https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/nhs-and-private-abortion-treatment-clinics-london?gclid=CMXKn_ees8wCFbYK0wodtOwFQg
It claims to help and support Irish women who want an abortion.
I'm surprised the law in NI hasn't come down on them too, considering what they are doing can't be that different to the mother that got jailed.
I'm not sure how that works, they come to London for it, then get arrested when they go home?
-
This is where the Catholic Church starts to argue philosophy about 'ensoulment' and the question of where individuality begins. The position has changed since Thomas Aquinas. Most of these arguments have been developed by men, and I think that when it comes to laying down the law about such things, this is the time that men, and Catholic priests in particular, should shut the fuck up. Any comments I make here are otherwise offered with a degree of diffidence.
Yes, my feelings at the time were for wanted (although not necessarily planned) pregnancies. At a different time and in different circumstances it may well not have seemed that way to me but it's not something I've ever had to face. God knows though it's hard enough for the women who do have to go through it without anyone pointing the finger.
-
She was prosecuted at 21 and given a one year suspended sentence, but she aborted aged 19. It was her housemates who shopped her and I suppose they may not have been 'friends' but I do not know what they hoped to achieve. I would have thought, even those who are against abortion, wouldn't report someone to the police. That is totally lacking in any kindness.
I hope we don't hear of anything like that happening again.
This is old news now, but this is the very sad one I read about.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
:(
-
That is a horrific story Rose. It beggars belief that a young, probably quite healthy, woman has to die because of a religious ideology. Also the baby's heart beat stopped about two days before the lady died so an abortion could have been carried out anyway, it wouldn't really have been an abortion as the child was dead so where is the logic? There is none. I know there must have been more to it in view of her septicaemia but on the face of it, the poor woman was neglected and allowed to die unnecessarily. The family were probably well off enough to have been able to travel over here but it must have been too late in the pregnancy for that. So sad, not something her husband and family would get over in a hurry.