Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Galaxiom]

The religious often feel they are being insulted or demeaned when the actual content and nature of their holy book and accompanying beliefs are described.

The fact is the Bible does tell of the glory of brutal genocidal massacres performed by devotees at the behest of their "loving God". It does proscribe the ritual slaughter of innocent animals to atone for misdeeds and which side of the altar the priest is to pour the blood. Of how God loves the smell of burning flesh.

It does afford lesser right to women. It tells how children should be punished by stoning. It does vilify homosexuals.

Its philosopy is objectively primitive and the faithful do try to avoid acknowledging that this is indeed part of their deity's "guide to rightousness".

It is not the atheist who demeans the faithful but the embarrassing confrontation with the reality of their own archaic belief system.

 

[Alc]

I was genuinely trying to see which parts were seen as incorrect.

Assuming it was the 'summary' of the religious argument that was the problem, which bits were worthy of the sly dig about it summing up the poster as opposed to the people being described?

Originally Posted by Adam Caramon

Many of those who are religious feel that life starts at conception, thus abortion is wrong no matter what. Some will make exceptions in the case of ra** or if the mother's life is in danger, but they don't explain why it is okay to murder (their words) the fetus in these circumstances.

Anything wrong there? I don't see anything not in line with what's been posted, nor anything insulting.

Originally Posted by Adam Caramon

Religious people feel that their religion should be taken seriously and have as much or more influence in these matters as science does. Many of them feel that because their religion says that abortion is wrong (or at least, their religious group's interpretation says so), that they have a duty to stop all women from having abortions.

Same here. Nothing insulting, just summarising what's been posted.

Has the whole thread degenerated to such an extent that one person summarising what's been said - in what read like a pretty impartial manner, despite the poster's own preferences - opens them up to snide remarks?

 

[Brianwarnock]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Do those opposed to abortion per se have a comment

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I thought it was pretty accurate and didn't resort to insults.
Which part(s) did you feel he got wrong?

"Some will make exceptions in the case of ra** or if the mother's life is in danger, but they don't explain why it is okay to murder (their words) the fetus in these circumstances. "

Of course they explain, as they would explain self defense or war etc etc - sadly just an attempt to summarise the religiuos as unthinking. I am not going to explain - cos it really is 101 level- if we havent reached that yet - theres was no point continuing.

"Religious people feel that their religion should be taken seriously and have as much or more influence in these matters as science does. Many of them feel that because their religion says that abortion is wrong (or at least, their religious group's interpretation says so), that they have a duty to stop all women from having abortions. "

Again "because their religion says abortion is wrong" - how about rather than portray religiuos people as unthinking - its should be "cos they believe in a sanctity of life , the idea that killing an unborn on demand isnt good for society generally.."


The summary is more of a view on religiuos folk brought in before the thread started than actual views of abortion in this thread - or generally.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Do those opposed to abortion per se have a comment

Brian

I am not opposed in a case where the mothers helath is at risk, neither is the law in Ireland. Somewhere medicine or procedure failed to in time predict the outocme of denying an abortion here , if the story is correct.

I think all the medical investigation would need to come out before having a real opinion of it.

What do you imagine an anti abortion person may comment?

 

[Brianwarnock]

What do you imagine an anti abortion person may comment?

I don't know that is why I asked.

I gather that you are like me, opposed to abortion on demand but accepting of it in certain circumstances.

The law in Ireland is obviously not well framed if the medical profession are scared of it.

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I don't know that is why I asked.

I gather that you are like me, opposed to abortion on demand but accepting of it in certain circumstances.

The law in Ireland is obviously not well framed if the medical profession are scared of it.

Brian

OK - but I wondered why you were interested in a anti abortionists response? Rather than anyones. You must have imagined a differing response? I iamagine their response would be similar to a pro choice being shown a story of a healthy woman and baby dieing as the result of having a legal abortion.


Yes ,

and yes its definately the lawyers fault ;-)

 

[Brianwarnock]

She didn't have an abortion.

I would have expected the pro abortionists to be angry that an abortion was refused.

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

She didn't have an abortion.

I would have expected the pro abortionists to be angry that an abortion was refused.

Brian

I know that. I was supposing you had put up a link to an abortion that had gone wrong, and how proc choice would respond.

I can only imagine the two sides would respond similarly for deaths resulting from laws they agreed with. I'm trying to look at both sides - rather than focus on the failings of just the one.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Ah! That's a different question entirely and opens a larger debate, I think the pro abortionists would say that the reason that all abortions should be allowed is that it prevents abortions not allowed being done in backstreet clinics with a risk to both mother and child, but few if any medical procedures are 100% risk free.

Brian

 

[Rabbie]

I think in these tragic circumstances an abortion should have been allowed. That way one life would have been saved. In my view saving one life is better than allowing two deaths. AS it turned out the fowtus died in any case so better to savw rhe mother

 

[Galaxiom]

Here are the facts.

Life is a continuum. It has been since our ancestors were bacteria. An embryo is a partitioning of a cell and in multicellular organism is essentially a parasite on its mother. The choice to continue a pregnancy is the right of the host to allow it.

The planet is already overwhelmed by humans. The status quo is not sustainable. The more humans we make the sooner the whole thing collapses.

Draw you own conclusions.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I would draw a clear distinction between abortion and the necessity for birth control.


Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

One other thing, I don't think my wife ever thought of her children as parasites, also in every definition that I can find the host and parasite are of different species.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

Life is a continuum. It has been since our ancestors were bacteria. An embryo is a partitioning of a cell and in multicellular organism is essentially a parasite on its mother. The choice to continue a pregnancy is the right of the host to allow it.

So 'mothers' don't decide to have an abortion because of what the embryo might become but rather what it is currently doing?

 

[Galaxiom]

One other thing, I don't think my wife ever thought of her children as parasites,

Fine. She wanted the babies, it was her body and hence her choice. However those who make that choice should not presume to make the choice for others.

I notice nobody commented on the fact that the planet is already overun by an obviously unsustainable population of humans.

 

[ChrisO]

Once the motto of a popular retailer in Australia "while I live I grow" may be paraphrased as "while we grow we die".

Chris.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Fine. She wanted the babies, it was her body and hence her choice. However those who make that choice should not presume to make the choice for others.

I notice nobody commented on the fact that the planet is already overun by an obviously unsustainable population of humans.

Do you actually read the posts and think about what the conversation is saying?

I used my wife as an example in my argument that a foetus is not considered a parasite, at no point did I say that she was for or against abortion.

As for your second paragraph read post 393

Brian

 

[Adam Caramon]

If a woman wants an abortion, that means she does not want to have the baby, clearly we can all agree on that, yes? So the next question is, who should be able to make the decision if she is allowed to terminate that pregnancy? Who makes the decision that she must carry a pregnancy for 9 months?

Is it her, or the government?

The argument I hear on occasion is, "These women are irresponsible, using abortion as a means of birth control."

Assuming that is accurate (which the facts do not support on any kind of wide-scale level), why would the government want to force an irresponsible woman into having a child? Punishing someone by telling them they are now responsible for a human life seems like a really bad idea.

Lastly, for everyone who is for the government passing laws that restricts a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, are you also against governmental support to single women, poor people, children's programs, etc? Women who are irresponsible and make poor decisions tend not to have great jobs with maternity leave or supportive husbands.

 

[dan-cat]

I used my wife as an example in my argument that a foetus is not considered a parasite, at no point did I say that she was for or against abortion.

That was the point of my question too.

If the reason given for having an abortion is not wanting a baby then the definition of an embryo as a parasite becomes inadequate. The mother herself is expanding the definition to include the potentiality of that embryo.

To restrict the definition of anything to what it actually is at any single time flies in the face of human thinking. It is our ability to anticipate that makes up a large part of our rationale.