|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why don't Anglicans do enough on abortion?
|
Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888
|
Posted
The Anglican church has recently faced criticism from Dr Rowan Williams that Anglicans are not doing enough to defend the rights of the unborn child.
Out of interest why do you think this is? Is it because little is taught inside the church on such issues? Or is it just a symptom of the politically apathetic society we live in?
Paddy
[ 15. June 2003, 20:18: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Maybe because some Anglicans don't share your views on abortion.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
is it just a symptom of the politically apathetic society we live in?
Perhaps, Paddy, because some of us are politically active on the other side. My opinion on this highly charged topic
Abortion should be safe, legal, available, and rare
The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent (by whatever means) unwanted pregnancy. Which requires frankness and public education, amongst other things.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
*sits back, puts feet up, and prepares to watch the fireworks*
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Late Quartet
Irredeemably speciesist?
# 1207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
*sits back, puts feet up, and prepares to watch the fireworks*
Yes more thank likely Nicole, and yet I hope for a peaceful and respectful exchange on this topic which is mindful of the variety of experiences shipmates are bound to have in this area.
--------------------
Late Quartet is cycling closer to Route 6 than Route 66 these days.
Posts: 899 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
Hi there Paddy, and welcome to the Ship. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Can you supply a link to the relevant statement by Dr. Williams?
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Oooo. Everyone beat me to it. Paddy, you're begging the question, I fear. Back up a step. You're assuming that Anglicans, generally, oppose legal access to abortion.* That is mostly very untrue.
*as opposed to thinking abortion itself wrong, which is not the same question.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Oooo. Everyone beat me to it. Paddy, you're begging the question, I fear. Back up a step. You're assuming that Anglicans, generally, oppose legal access to abortion.* That is mostly very untrue.
*as opposed to thinking abortion itself wrong, which is not the same question.
And why do you think Paddy is assuming this rather than thinking that abortion, as a principle is wrong.
In some ways it is the same question seeing that abortion, to those who oppose it, is not simply a 'wrong' but an act of infanticide. Why, therefore, if one feels that abortion is wrong in itself should one feel it is still right for people to have a legal right to access it? The same argument could be applied for euthanasia for example. In the hunting debate we have seen that those who feel it to be wrong overwhelmingly wish to deny access to hunting to those who support it. Why should abortion be any different?
If Archbishop Williams is saying (and I must confess that I haven't seen this or heard about it before Paddy's post) then I think it is splendid that an Anglican archbishop with impeccable liberal credentials is willing to question the liberal abortion imperative. I cannot understand, for example, why so many of those who vehemently oppose a war with Iraq because of the loss of life involved are perfectly happy with abortion on demand. Another example is the medical profession and those who work in 'family planning'. I know a woman who recently went along to her local clinic to have her suspected pregnancy confirmed. After its confirmation (which was the cul,mination of several months trying by the couple concerned) the first questions she was asked by the nurse was 'You know you are well within the legal termination limit don't you? Do you need information about this?' That hardly seems to point to a healthy society.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I'm not quite able to make up my mind on whether or not abortion should be legal. I'm inclined to say it shouldn't, because I do consider it to be the murder of an innocent child, but, if it were illegal, it would be so much more dangerous, to both mother and child.
I still can't bring myself to say that it should be permitted, though. I remember someone asking someone once "Do you agree with abortion?" and the response was "Do you agree with the slaughter of innocent children?" I wouldn't ever legitimise the latter, and so find it difficult to justify legalising the former. Mmmm. I don't know.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
I can't see where Paddy has expressed any view whatsoever.
He refers to a statement (of which I am unaware), and asks why that statement should be the case. He seems to not be questioning the statement, which is not necessarily indicative of his views.
And he is a newbie, and we don't know his posting style.
So I think that people are being unnecessarily twitchy here. Lets find out some more about the question, please?
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
He quoted a possible Rowan Williams question about why Anglicans don't do more to defend the unborn, and suggested that this might be due to apathy or lack of education.
Thus, the question assumed facts not in evidence -- that is, it assumes that Anglicans (all of them!) do feel that they ought to do something about abortion , but aren't doing anything for some other reason. I submit that the reason they aren't "doing something" about it is that generally, many Anglicans feel that there is no need to "do something" about it.
Of course, as noted, Anglicans hold a range of views on abortion and the propriety of government prohibition thereof. In the U.S. Episcopal Church, there are representatives for both views. See NOEL: Episcopalians for Life and The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which counts many Episcopalians as members.
And it's not that it's a bad question; it's just not framed very clearly. Maybe you could be more specific, Paddy?
[ 03. January 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Hi. Yes, I am pretty sure that Rowan Wiliams is not in favour of abortion - although he doesn't necessarily argue for a ban on legal abortion. Have a look at his book Lost Icons pp38-47 if you want to read his views. I hesitate to precis them, simply because he isn't a soundbite cleric ( thank God!) - but his main objection is to the notion of 'choice' used as an argument, from a moral standpoint. He also stresses that militarism is at least as immoral but notes that many who oppose abortion or who view abortion as a 'moral' issue fail to do the same with militarism.
I think, whilst I do respect his view, and I think its consistent, that mine are less hostile, and I do think that Anglican views are probably quite mixed.
One thing I do think, though, is that people on both sides of the argument do have some things which they may agree with. For example, that women who wish to take the pregnancy to term and give birth should not be prevented from doing so by economic deprivation. And that there should be more effort placed into preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, so that abortion doesn't have to then be considered.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I can't see where Paddy has expressed any view whatsoever.
See his thread introducing himself in All Saints. His views on this subject are quite clear.
quote:
from Cosmo:
Why, therefore, if one feels that abortion is wrong in itself should one feel it is still right for people to have a legal right to access it? The same argument could be applied for euthanasia for example. In the hunting debate we have seen that those who feel it to be wrong overwhelmingly wish to deny access to hunting to those who support it. Why should abortion be any different?
I for one think that there are plenty of cases in which my personal morality need not be reflected in the law. I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently which read: "Against abortion? Don't have one."
Saying simply that since abortion is wrong it should be illegal ignores the complex situations that lead women and girls to seek abortions.
I agree with Henry Troup: abortion should be safe, legal, available, and rare.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I remember listening to Tony Blair on this, where he said that personally he didn't agree with abortion ( you may remember that when the Blairs had their fourth child, that Cherie didnt have a scan because she said abortion wasn't an option for her) , but that he did not think it would be right to impose his own views on the legal position.
The view of Ruth and Henry is the one I hold as well.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I for one think that there are plenty of cases in which my personal morality need not be reflected in the law. I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently which read: "Against abortion? Don't have one."
What if someone truly believes that abortion is murder?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
If someone truly thinks abortion is murder, then obviously they're going to think abortion should be illegal. But most such people are able to recognize that their views are not shared by the majority of the public. If they can convince the general public that abortion is murder, then the law will probably change.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I think you miss my point. You dismissed pro-life activists as wanting to incorporate their personal morality into the law. It's not a matter of morality for a lot of them (okay, I'll say it -- us), it's a matter of infanticide. I see no reason why I should sit back and be quiet just because other people don't see it that way. I think murder, in all cases, should be illegal. It wasn't too long ago that the murder of women and non-whites was simply considered a matter of personal morality, but I am quite thankful that that personal morality was imposed on the rest of the country.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
Well said Erin- for anti abortion people, abortion cannot be an issue of private choice because it directly, and majorly involves an individual other than the person making the decision.
So for them, the bumper sticker "Anti-Abortion? Don't have one" is a bit like saying "Anti-Murder? Don't kill anyone" or "Anti-Robbery? Don't rob anyone?"
Of course there is the issue about whether abortion is murder etc, but on the basic point it is important to understand that it is not simply a case of "imposing your moral views on someone else".
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
That's what I keep running up against, Erin. I have to respect the political involvement of those who believe abortion is murder, even as I worry that because the positions cannot be reconciled, inevitably the majority will impose its will on the minority should the Supremes kick it back to the states.
I have to respect that political involvement for two reasons: this is a democracy and we want to encourage people to agitate politically for change and also my own forbears, who were abolitionist, used very similar rhetoric to support their view that slavery ought to be outlawed.
I read a terrific article in First Things -- it was an article explicating the irreconcilability of the views on both sides, and explaining why the standard conservative rhetoric would never work with women, because women who would consider abortion regard pregnancy as an attack against which they must defend; and regard those who would outlaw abortion as engaging in a personal attack. The article goes on to explain how the pro-life message might be better delivered as an empowerment one.
I disagreed with the writer, and was a little chilled, but I really understood for the first time where the other side is coming from, and why we really can't even talk about the issue without it devolving quickly.
Abortion: A Failure to Communicate
For example, he says:
quote:
One objective of the research [a study he talks about extensively] was to answer a question that has baffled pro-life activists for some time. How can women, and the public in general, be comfortable with being against abortion personally but in favor of keeping it legal? Because pro-lifers find it morally obvious that one cannot simultaneously hold that "abortion is killing" and "abortion should be legal," they have tended to assume that people need only to be shown more clearly that the fetus is a baby. They assume that if the humanity of the unborn is understood, the consequent moral imperative, "killing a baby is wrong," will naturally follow, and women will choose life for their unborn children. This orientation has framed much of the argument by pro-lifers for over two decades, with frustratingly little impact.
The new research shows why the traditional approach has had so little effect, and what can be done to change things.
The summary report of the study bears the intriguing title "Abortion: The Least Of Three Evils—Understanding the Psychological Dynamics of How Women Feel About Abortion." The report suggests that women do not see any "good" resulting from an unplanned pregnancy. Instead they must weigh what they perceive as three "evils," namely, motherhood, adoption, and abortion.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I find myself surprised that I cannot remember a thread primarily concerned with abortion. Perhaps this topic has been taboo for some good reasons...?
Pardon me while I donate my $0.02. I'd like to have it said.
For me, value judgements about life are a touchy topic. On one hand, I think that sometimes it is sensible to sacrifice one life for the sake of another, or others. That is why my gut reaction to abortion and euthanasia is that it can only be decided by those directly responsible for the lives in question. On another hand, I fear the abuse of these things, and find it difficult to trust any group to steward something so delicate and sensitive.
I find that I usually support those that promote choice. This is because I fear that those who make that terrible choice need a chance to wrest some good out of the blood on their hands, and that chance can be disturbingly small. I would never agree to make the process "easy", as it requires serious contemplation. Indeed, I feel strongly that the only real solution is to be able to avoid the majority of abortions through education about contraceptives.
My own connection to the women's group at school, and their quiet and often grim work helping those wracked with the angst of what do, has caused me to respect what I see now as an unfortunate reality. It shames me to say this, but the only pro-life contact I have ever found has been indignant wealthy people, purveying ludicrous ideas about dead babies in dumpsters, who simply didn't know what the fuck they were talking about. It makes me angry. I know that there are other faces to the movement, and I am partially responsible for not seeking them out, but I still think I would trust these people less about making value judgements about lives than I would the average 16-year-old girl.
Thanks for your patience. Sorry for the sidetrack.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
As a young atheist parrot of atheist dogma, I couselled my sisters to have abortions, paid for them with college loans, and helped them with the fallout. (Long story: my sisters have always seen me as Dad more than my Dad.) "It's a little pile of jelly that is going to ruin your life. Come with me, you're getting an abortion." After watching the fallout twice I realized that I was wrong.
As a "thinking" Episcopalian I was an active member in NOEL and gave thoughtful pro-life presentations in the wealthy suburbs of San Diego California and Washington DC. My story was that by the time most woman are aware that they are pregnant the fetus is essentially differentiated into the major organ systems, including tiny hands and feet. While it is biologically "parasitic" on the mother, children are helpless and the economic equivilent of "parasites" from birth until long after. Still I recognized the thorny issues of pregnancy due to rape and encouraged people to at least not see it automatically as a question of the mother's rights only.
As a Humanist who just went to two Unitarian Universalist services and liked them, I'd say today that I am a moderate who does not have a difficulty with first term abortions but cannot agree with final third abortions. In the first trimester I am reasonably certain that the fetus has no idea what is happening to it, so it has no individual rights to assert. In the third trimester I can imagine that it may experience pain, suffering, and primitive emotions like terror, but more importantly the child [sic] could live outside the womb and has gained the potential for biological independence. Therefore it can assert individual rights and the State can step in to protect it. The mother can keep it or give up rights to it after birth if someone can be found to voluntarily take it.
I have no idea what to think about the middle trimester.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
OK. My wishy-washy "proving why the human backside is shaped the way it is - for sitting on fences" thoughts on the matter...
I am, essentially, opposed to abortion. It's my lefty sympathies (yes, I know, but this is how my mind works). I believe in defending the weak against the strong. The same impetus that makes me support minimum wage and trade unionism makes me oppose abortion in theory and in principle.
But - and there's always a but - I do draw a distinction between a full term foetus and a zygote. Life does not begin at conception; life is continuous. There is no line you can draw. But what you do have through pregnancy is the development of a potential human into a real one. It follows, therefore, that the "wrongness" of terminating that pregnancy also increases from "not wrong at all" (barrier contraception) to "totally wrong" - abortion of what is indistinguishable from a newborn.
Life is messy. You cannot just say "Oh have the thing and put it up for adoption". You do run the risk of phychological harm to the mother. It just ain't that simple. Moreover, it must be conceded that it is potentially extremely psychologically damaging to carry the child of one's rapist, or of a violent partner whom one is trying to sever one's connections to. Scenarios like this are myriad, and will always give rise to "yes but"s and "what if"s.
What I propose is that one must measure the 'wrongness' of termination against the 'wrongness' of allowing the pregnancy to continue, if doing so would damage the mental or physical health of the mother, for example. In reality, I doubt that any abortions after a few weeks, once major organs are developing, would be justifiable in any but the most extreme cases - threat to the mother's life, for example. Earlier than this the matter is different.
Does that aid or hinder the debate?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
All Christians have to be practical, - on abortion and divorce. We don't like it, it's a lose/lose situation but we're trying to make the best out of a bad situation.
I'm sure God sympathises with that point of view.
But that doesn't mean that with 30% of British Pregnancies being aborted, I don't think there is something profoundly round here somewhere.
Giving out free condoms and pills to very young teenagers does seem to have made matters worse.
Sex is now seen as a 'right' rather than a 'responsibility'. And if you're not getting enough or even don't think about it enough there's pills to make you even more 'hornier'.
To advance the above argument naturally gives rise to the argument that you're a 'killjoy' or 'sexually repressed'.
But although I'm not going to give a young woman who's just had an abortion anything other than sympathy, I have a deep worry about the amount of mental harm our female population is currently going through.
I've a feeling that future generations will look back at this period in our history with shame.
Pax et Bonum
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
See his thread introducing himself in All Saints. His views on this subject are quite clear.
Thanks, Ruth. Duh! ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy L
Shipmate
# 2170
|
Posted
I think all us gents need to step back a little and let the ladies decide.
Trite but true.
--------------------
Timothy
Posts: 757 | From: Kalamazoo | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
Timothy - It takes 2 to Tango.
Males are just as much involved as women.
As Jesus said when 2 people have sex they become one. (His advice on why not to sleep with a prostitute.)
This is not a solitary act with a blow-up doll.
Pax et Bonum
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But its the women who actually have to go through the pregnancy, and I think that does mean that a man cannot and should not dictate to her what she should do.
It doesn't mean they are not involved, but at that stage at least, I think its a secondary involvement.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy L:
I think all us gents need to step back a little and let the ladies decide.
Trite but true.
Hear, hear! In the case of unwanted pregnancy, the gentleman has already had a chance to decide... and he blew it by not wearing a little rubber thing on the end of his dong.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy L:
I think all us gents need to step back a little and let the ladies decide.
Trite but true.
I disagree. I mean, the woman is the one calling ALL of the shots here -- she can abort the child, no questions asked, OR she can carry it to term and demand 18-22 years' worth of child support from the guy. Now you're saying he just has to sit there and take it while a woman decides his future? I'm not sure if that's fair. 97% of the time women are just as responsible for the unwanted pregnancy, so doesn't Coot's argument apply to them as well?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888
|
Posted
Henry Troup:
"Abortion should be safe, legal, available, and rare"
Firstly abortion is never safe. Most women suffer from post-abortion trauma. So common is this condition now that at some universities, medical students have to study it. As Germaine Greer (a generally pro-life radical feminist) rightly points out, abortion does more harm than good to the female's body.
It should also be noted that in the last five years, more women have died from abortion than from childbirth.
Due to advances in medical technology it is extremely rare for women to have their life threatened by pregnancy. In 1999, the latest year for which detailed government statistics are available, only 1 abortion was performed to save a mother's life.
"The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent (by whatever means) unwanted pregnancy"
Ah a common catchphrase from the 1960s. Pro-aborts used to promise us that abortion would 'end unwanted pregnancies'. Why does infanticide still occur? Why does child abuse still occur? Promise made, Promise broken.
Ham'n'eggs:
"Can you supply a link to the relevant statement by Dr. Williams?"
I cannot supply a link to this specific one since it was in a TV interview. But I shall supply these quotes from him which will convince you I am asserting the truth:
"The Methodist church in Great Britain has given its official support to the distribution of abortifacient morning-after pills to girls at school. Rev David Deeks, Methodist spokesman on church and society affairs, issued a statement in which he endorsed the government's strategy to reduce teenage pregnancies and claimed that availability of the morning-after pill was in the "best interests" of teenagers who had engaged in underage sex. Leaders of the Catholic Church in Britain have condemned the morning-after pill, and Dr Rowan Williams, Anglican archbishop of Wales, has also opposed the drug because it causes early abortions. The Church of England has made no official statement on the subject. [Daily Telegraph, 10 January] "
Also see this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2148479.stm
and: http://www.ird-renew.org/Episcopal/Episcopal.cfm?ID=419&c=21
and this one: LONDON, June 20, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The UK pro-life group Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has pointed out that the man likely to become the next archbishop of Canterbury is against abortion. However, Dr. Rowan Williams, reportedly the top choice of the Crown Appointments Commission - to be formally ratified by the Prime Minister and Queen - is shunned by conservatives for his support of ordination of homosexuals and women priests.
Rowan, who according to The Times will be named to take over from Dr. George Carey as head of the worldwide Anglican church in July, has described his views on abortion as "ultra-conservative" and has condemned the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.
See the Times coverage and a 2001 Southern Cross article detailing Rowan's views:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-332465,00.html
http://www.anglicanmediasydney.asn.au/august2001/world2.html
That should do.
To make it easier to read, I'll reply to others in a separate post.
Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Thank you Erin. As a father of an child who was an "accident" (with the pill) who discussed abortion with his girlfriend at the time you have summed up exactly why the biological fathers should be involved in the process of decision making.
I was 27 when I became a father. It is the most maturing* process I have ever been through. We seriously considered abortion but “felt” it was wrong. We were right, my son is, in his own way, the best thing that has happened to me. Despite the child support, the anguish of being a parent who does not live with his children I would not have it any other way. They are wonderful and a real gift.
I abhor the abortion rate in this country. I abhor the way that human sexual relationships have been over run by mammon, machismo and marketing. I abhor the whole selfish immaturity of a nation that would sees pregnancy as a burden and being in the way of a career or “enjoying myself.”
I fully support the mothers right decide what she thinks is best. It’s a dilemma, it is to easy to assume a position and stick to it regardless.
The horror inherent is these situations is obvious. The women who are wracked because of earlier abortions, the families unable to cope with the perceived demands, the financial stress placed upon wage earners. Much if not all of it is due to the parents unwillingness or inability to be responsible. Responsible for their own contraception, for their own sexual ethics, for the consequences of their own actions, for when those consequences are either a child born in to trouble of aborted for the most selfish of reasons or the feelings they are left with after the procedure.
It is a perverse and foolish generation that lives like this and God is surely wrathful with us for our sins.
P
* for maturing you could read horrible, difficult and heart breaking but then for me maturing always is.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I suppose the difficulty for those anti-abortion campaigners who think it is murder, is that to work with those who take a different view but would still like to see a reduction in the numbers of abortion, is diluting what to them is a moral absolute.
However, as I think it is very unlikely that abortion will ever be made illegal - there is a very clear majority for its continued legal availability - and given the likely consequences of banning abortion, I am in that majority, I think it is worth trying to think through some practical ways in which women who wish not to have an abortion can be more easily enabled to make their choice ( and I do mean money and housing ), and how we can reduce, in particular, teenage pregnancy, using good practice from Europe.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888
|
Posted
Laura:
"You're assuming that Anglicans, generally, oppose legal access to abortion.* That is mostly very untrue"
What reasons do Anglicans have for supporting abortion? It contradicts the bible.
Considering Mary's poor economic and social status perhaps pro-aborts would have recommended she have an abortion?
Thurible:
"if it were illegal, it would be so much more dangerous, to both mother and child."
I forgive you for being deceived by pro-aborts but this is simply untrue. Pro-aborts USED to refer to backstreet abortions that were taking place which often resulted in the death of a mother. But these figures were found to be fabricated (made-up).
Dr Bernard Nathanson, an abortionist who performed 5,000 abortions before he became pro-life admitted that he had lied about backstreet abortion figures. They over-inflated them by adding two or sometimes three noughts onto the end of the real figure. As a result, the number of backstreet abortions allegedly occuring was greater than the number of legal ones taking place today!!
After all, what person would risk her life to have an abortion rather than to give her child up for adoption?
Furthermore, how comes the backstreet abortion argument is never used in countries like Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Northern Ireland, Monaco, Poland etc?
The fact that statistics in the past have been fictitious has led pro-abortionists to drop completely the argument that back street abortions occur. Instead they now claim women have to travel to different countries to have abortions. They then cite the suffering they go through to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to have an abortion. Again there is little evidence supporting this on a grand scale.
If women are traveling or indeed are really having dangerous back-street abortions then the government should do more to help these women who obviously feel the only way to solve their problem is by aborting their child.
Merseymike:
"although he doesn't necessarily argue for a ban on legal abortion."
He's argued for a complete ban several times. He is also a life member of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.
"there should be more effort placed into preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place"
Although women may initially be fearful of giving birth, many of these women then go on to love their child. Similarly, women who are very enthusiastic about giving birth may then go onto abuse their child. We cannot predict human behaviour unfortunately and it is therefore difficult to prevent 'unwanted' (if such a thing exists) pregnancies.
Ruth W:
"I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently which read: "Against abortion? Don't have one.""
A rather right-wing position (reminiscient of Thatcher's policies). That's like saying "I'm opposed to the Jewish holocaust, but if Nazis want to kill them then why should I force my morality on them?'.
Abortion infringes the rights of another human being and as such should be outlawed.
I noticed that you claim you are a liberal. Why then is Charles Kennedy, Alan Beith (deputy leader of Liberal Democrats) and Baroness Williams (leader of Lib Dems in House of Lords) supportive of pro-life issues? Alan Beith in particular is extremely pro-life.
Also if you are a liberal you're supposed to be supportive of human rights - i.e. the right to life.
"Saying simply that since abortion is wrong it should be illegal ignores the complex situations that lead women and girls to seek abortions."
Of course it doesn't. That's why there are pro-life counselling centres across the country. We try to help those women who are poor, or who have been bullied by bosses into having abortions (like the case with the singer Natalie Appleton who was told by her bosses: 'its your child or your career').
"But most such people are able to recognize that their views are not shared by the majority of the public"
In America 44% of the public are against abortion, compared to only 26% who support it. The other percentage is comprised of people who are not sure where they stand or whom don't fall into either category.
RooK:
"I think that sometimes it is sensible to sacrifice one life for the sake of another, or others"
The unborn child does not get a choice though obviously.
"I feel strongly that the only real solution is to be able to avoid the majority of abortions through education about contraceptives."
The spread of contraceptives does not decrease the abortion rate. A study from Nottingham University found that it actually increased the abortion rate. It is believed that an easier availability of contraception means that sex happens more often with more partners meaning there is a greater chance of contraception failing and falling pregnant.
Also contraception encourages sex outside marriage but it is in these situations that most abortions occur.
Finally, some contraceptives are actually forms of abortion. For instance the morning-after-pill is not contra-conception but contra-implantation and therefore acts as an abortifacient by stopping the conceived embryo from implanting into the wall of the womb - thus killing it.
"I know that there are other faces to the movement, and I am partially responsible for not seeking them out, but I still think I would trust these people less about making value judgements about lives than I would the average 16-year-old girl."
I think you havent met many in the pro-life movement. I know a whole host of people - from hardcore animal rights activits to liberal-atheists to neo-Marxists to counsellors to models and singers.
JimT:
"In the first trimester I am reasonably certain that the fetus has no idea what is happening to it"
But that is assuming that someone operates purely on a mental level. For instance there is a distinction between being brain dead and being dead. People often assume that brain death = death. But that is wrong. Doctors never declare a person dead if they are brain dead since their other organs are still active.
Furthermore your statement is slightly strange since we are not fully-conscious of our surroundings until a year or two after birth when our brain develops further. Of course an unborn child at 10-12 weeks responds to light but the child is not fully conscious until some time after birth.
Let me paste this from my own notes:
From the moment of conception the embryo is very significant. For example, recently an embryologist from Oxford University, demonstrated that the process of shaping the human body begins at the moment of conception – the point at which a sperm and an egg unite. This evidence alone shows that even at the second we were conceived, we were much more than a featureless bundle of cells.
At just 18 days old the heart begins to beat. At just 42 days old, brain waves can be recorded. At the same date, the embryo sprouts the rudiments of fingers. The vertebrae, too, are beginning to develop.
Between weeks 10 and 12, the stage at which most babies are aborted, there has been much progress in the development of the child. For instance, at week 10, the liver starts to secrete bile whilst the pancreas starts to produce insulin. Although the foetus only measures 2 inches and about a quarter of an ounce, he or she’s fingernails and toenails have begun to grow. The skin has thickened, and hair follicles develop beneath the surface. The foetus can also respond to stimulation. Prodded, the eyelids and palms of the hands now close.
Two weeks later, despite not yet being conscious, the foetus’ uniqueness begins to assert itself. Different unborn children now make different facial expressions, based, it is believed, on behavioural patterns inherited from their parents. Within the next week, the foetus will begin to move around, although the mother cannot yet sense these movements.
I hope it is evident that in the first trimester alone, the foetus is developing rapidly. In fact by the end of this primary trimester, the unborn child has developed all its major systems and no new organs remain to be formed. Far from being a ‘blob of cells’ the foetus looks every bit as real as a born child, and has already developed characteristics.
Paddy
Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888
|
Posted
Karl:
"I am, essentially, opposed to abortion. It's my lefty sympathies "
Good on you. I am also a bit of a leftie. I have written an essay here and there on why capitalism causes abortions. For instance it is more profitable for businesses to get their female staff to have abortions. THat why they do not have to pay for maternity leave, finding temporary staff or finding replacement staff, the loss in production... and so on. This is why big businesses like Microsoft fund abortion companies millions of pounds/dollars.
"You do run the risk of phychological harm to the mother"
Actually there is a greater risk of psychological harm from having an abortion. For instance there is post-abortion trauma. Furthermore, research carried out on behalf of the government of Finland found that women who have abortions are seven times more likely to commit suicide then women who do not have any.
As for the rape scenario - aborting the child doesn't make the situation any better. Rape is an experience that stays with you forever. Why should the child become another victim - punished for a crime that the biological father committed?
Garden Hermit:
"I'm sure God sympathises with that point of view."
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" you mean?
Timothy L:
"I think all us gents need to step back a little and let the ladies decide."
It was men who first legalised abortion in 1967. The bill was brought forward by David Steel, who has since been found to have connections to Zimbabwean Terrorist groups (I can send you the info if that interested!).
Secondly, a doctor has to allow a woman to have an abortion. But 75% of doctors are male.
Thirdly, most of the abortionists are male too.
Therefore men cannot evade responsibility on the abortion issue. Men are expected by law to help with the upbringing of the born child - why should they not have responsibilities with unborn children?
Icarus:
"he blew it by not wearing a little rubber thing on the end of his dong."
Condoms are only 86% successful when worn properly.
Paddy
Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Paddy we are a bunch of mature (mostly) Christians who love to talk about all sorts of stuff. I know you are new on board but I think I ought to point out two things, Firstly if you are here and your opinion is utterly formed on an issue and you are unwilling to change one iota I would ask why you are here and why I should talk to you?
Secondly saying the same thing over and over again does not constitute debate or even argument it is boring. Your obvious concern over this issue is touching but you need to read all of what people are saying. Already we aboard are starting to debate this. Why don’t you sit back and read for a bit rather that try and bully us?
When a Host explains some of this stuff to you a bit more forcefully please don’t be offended or upset. If however you intend to continue in this vein the I am afraid we will not be talking much longer.
Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Now I am as pro-life as the next person (usually more so), but I think your categorization of others as "pro-abortion" is off the mark. Way way WAY off the mark. Outside of those feminist freaks who believe that anything involving a man is patriarchal oppression, I don't know of anyone who thinks that abortion is a good thing.
I noticed that your arguments are pretty much the standard arguments when it comes to abortion. I know of at least one (and I'm sure there are others) person here who has had an abortion. I suggest you tone down the rhetoric and condescension and really listen to and engage with what's being said here. Better yet, have a wander around the place and find some other interesting threads (there's pretty much something for everybody).
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Paddy : I fully accept that Rowan Williams is not in favour of abortion, but his latest book, where he talks about the issue, in pages 38-47, suggests that he accepts that the moral and legal questions may not be entirely congruent.
He states that :
" Reversion to a pre-1967 situation would only be attractive, even morally defensible, in the context of a massive reconstruction of attitudes to childcare and nurture, to the professional lives of childbearing women, the availabiltity of other forms of fertility control to women, and many other things besides" . He accepts that the law's role is 'fircely contested'.
I think many women who have an abortion are very aware that they did not wish to become pregnant. There are all sorts of reasons why they did, and in many cases, we are talking about young, teenage women and girls. Other countries, without a dominant Roman Catholic heritage, which does alter the overall climate on abortion, undoubtedly, seem to do better at it than we do. All the countries you mention except Northern Ireland are overwhelmingly RC, and if you want to know where NI women come for abortions, then go and watch the Belfast-Liverpool ferry arrive and you may get an idea.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
To return to Rowan Williams and his views, it seems clear that, just as he is getting it in the neck from one part of the Church for his principled stance on homosexuality, so he will get it in the neck from another part of the Church for his principled stance on abortion. That's one of the reasons I keep praying for the guy. That I agree with him is purely coincidental.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888
|
Posted
"However, as I think it is very unlikely that abortion will ever be made illegal - there is a very clear majority for its continued legal availability - and given the likely consequences of banning abortion, I am in that majority"
Far from it. Several countries ban abortion in Europe. For instance, there is Ireland, Northern Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Luxembourg (although legal doctors refuse to perform abortions), San Marino, Vatican, Monaco, Belgium (to some extent), Andorra...+ some others I cannot remember.
All of the South American continent bans abortion too.
In USA this year they will ban late-term abortions. The majority of Senators are opposed to abortion. The majority of under-26s are opposed to abortion in America.
In Italy, the Prime Minister has promised to place restrictions on abortion. Furthermore a cabinet minister has stated that they should ban it completely. Italy has a very low birth rate and drastic actions need to be taken.
In Germany several key government members have been pushing for a tightening of the laws to curb the population decline.
In the UK, by 2110, the population will be down to 30 million people because of the low birth rate and it is therefore only a matter of time before abortion is ended.
"how we can reduce, in particular, teenage pregnancy, using good practice from Europe"
America has the best success on teenage pregnancy. I presume you refer to Holland but their teenage pregnancy rate isn't particularly low and its very taboo over there due to the culture that has descended from the values of the upper classes. We do not have that same culture.
Furthermore why is teenage pregnancy a problem? We should not label such girls as 'problems'. They need help, love and support not some Daily Mail reader telling them they're the worst thing since Hitler.
These girls have been brave and have taken responsibility for their actions. For that they should be applauded. It would be all too easy for them to have had an abortion after all.
We should not be condemning these girls but launching investigation into why they feel a need to embark on a sexual relationship at such a young age. THat's where the root of the "problem" lies not in the girls' themselves.
"anti-abortion campaigners"
Please note that anti-abortion is not the same as being pro-life. Being pro-life means you are opposed to abortion because it involves the destruction of human life. Being anti-abortion means you are opposed to abortion for other reasons. For instance the Daily Mail is opposed to abortion because it encourages teenage sex whereas I am opposed to abortion because it kills a life.
Pyx_e:
"Firstly if you are here and your opinion is utterly formed on an issue and you are unwilling to change one iota I would ask why you are here and why I should talk to you? "
I am unwilling to change because I have come to a conclusion and seen unborn life. If you see an unborn child you will realise that they are human. I make no apology for having an opinion.
I am here because I wanted to meet more Christians in England and because a friend invited me on here. I started this topic because I genuinely wanted to know why Anglicans won't do more about abortion.
"why I should talk to you?"
Only you can answer that one lol.
"Secondly saying the same thing over and over again does not constitute debate or even argument it is boring."
What have I been saying over and over again???
"Your obvious concern over this issue is touching but you need to read all of what people are saying."
I do read what people write but I disagree with them. Is it wrong to believe in something? I don't have time to read every single sentence because I noticed there were quite a few replies since last night!! I'm flattered by the response though.
"If however you intend to continue in this vein the I am afraid we will not be talking much longer."
Forgive me for being naive, but I cannot comprehend what you are talking about. Perhaps it ought to be stated more bluntly. I shall not take offence.
Erin:
"but I think your categorization of others as "pro-abortion" is off the mark. Way way WAY off the mark"
If they support abortion then what should I refer to them as? I'll take suggestions seriously if you find being called pro-abortion is wrong.
"Outside of those feminist freaks who believe that anything involving a man is patriarchal oppression"
Please remember that a number of pro-lifers are feminists. For instance in the UK there is Germaine Greer and Ann Farmer. The first-ever feminist Mary Wolfstonecraft was a pro-lifer too.
Secondly, there are a number of pro-life feminist organisations. Take 'Feminists for Life' in America or the Afghan Women's Liberation Movement (listed as a link on this website).
"I know of at least one (and I'm sure there are others) person here who has had an abortion."
One-third of women who have an abortion have another one. I am afraid that sensitivity might therefore may backfire. As an active pro-lifer I speak to many women who have had abortions and for some it is an experience that they have regretted all their lives. I apologise that some of my comments may provoke upsetting memories but the same argument could be made of all political debate - it would be silly to cease all debate.
"I suggest you tone down the rhetoric and condescension and really listen to and engage with what's being said here"
There are a lot of posts and so I am having to generalise slightly - I apologise therefore if you feel I am not listening to every individual as intentively as I should. If any of you want to debate with me privately then you are welcome to do so (that's not an invitation for 100 people to email me lol).
You must also forgive me if I am using arguments that some of you are very aware of. I have employed these because some members did not seem to grasp basic concepts. I can assure you that I will not make use of common arguments if the occassion calls for it.
Hope this helps.
Paddy
Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Paddy : all of those countries you mentioned are Roman Catholic by tradition. Britain is not. That does make a difference in terms of the embeddedness of opposition to abortion within the culture. There is a clear majority against making abortion illegal in the UK, its actually an overwhelming one.
And America's teenage pregnancy rate is atrocious! I would agree that Holland's culture does have a more established 'taboo' than our own, but it is their sex education policies which have made a very great difference.
Now, given what Erin said, that most people aren't'pro-abortion', is there any way you could perceive in working towards the reduction of abortion with those who disagree with its banning ? The answer may be no, and if so, I respect that, because there's nothing wrong with believing abortion should be illegal, but you haven't said anything whch changes my mind on the issue.
Mike
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Doctors never declare a person dead if they are brain dead since their other organs are still active.
Bzzzzzt!! Wrong. But thank you for playing. Brain death is exactly the criterion doctors use to ascertain that someone is dead.
http://www.transweb.org/qa/asktw/answers/answers9509/braindeath.html - I draw your attention to the following:
quote:
Brain death is defined as the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain.
and:
quote:
A person who is declared brain dead is legally dead.
In Iowa (and most other states) two physicians must declare a person brain dead before organ donation can proceed.
Now, how accurate are your other statements I wonder?
I do trust you haven't come here merely to crusade?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888
|
Posted
Merseymike - I don't see how the quote suggests that Rowan Williams is possibly half-hearted about being pro-life. As I understand, he supports a massive change in public attitude and an improvement in childcare, a more flexible capitalist system et cetera
I support him on that issue, but with a change in the attitudes of people's stance on abortion will come that change in improvement in childcare etc.
The facilities are there to be used, its just because of the pro-abortion government, they are not being invested in enough.
For instance, at university if a woman falls pregnant then the government (and the university itself in some cases) are more than willing to pay for an abortion but NO university will help pay for the upbringing of the child. In this so-called democracy, a woman is therefore forced to choose between her child and her education.
With a more pro-life government, I am confident this would not be occurring.
"in many cases, we are talking about young, teenage women and girls"
The highest abortion rate is amongst the 24-30 year old category.
"All the countries you mention except Northern Ireland are overwhelmingly RC"
Monaco is not overwhelmingly RC either.
"if you want to know where NI women come for abortions, then go and watch the Belfast-Liverpool ferry arrive and you may get an idea."
Abortion clinics in the UK are required to account the numbers of abortions on women outside the UK. The number of abortions performed on Northern Irish women is actually very low and is not a great concern to us.
Paddy
Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Paddy Leahy, you seem to have made an effort to miss Pyx_e’s point and you have blatantly mischaracterized Erin’s position (as I’m sure she will explain to you in detail shortly). You are not helping your cause by alienating people who may otherwise agree with you on many points.
I am pro-life, but my beliefs on the matter are informed by my experiences during an exceptionally painful portion of my life. I am not going to lay myself open to callous abuse by you. I am also not going to risk associating myself with someone who believes that, “that sensitivity might backfire.” You can see that you have already managed to limit the discussion.
Please stop it. Stop spouting statistics and listen to what people have to say. As you know, this is an extraordinarily emotional and sensitive topic. Recognize that those on both sides are real people, not monsters.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888
|
Posted
Quick message to Karl (gotta go):
I can assure you what I stated is true. I was engaged in a massive debate with a number of people on the topic of brain death and I can guarantee that brain death is not necessarily classified as death in this country. The debate got silly in the end since we were debating questions like 'do brains think or do people think?'.
Besides I am talking about the UK - I cannot speak for America (your site is from the University of Michigan).
Paddy
Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying that all feminists were pro-choice, merely that there is a certain strand of feminism that looks upon pregnancy as yet another manifestation of patriarchal oppression, and therefore abortion is inherently a good thing.
Pro-abortion means that you WANT someone to have an abortion, that you think abortion is a GOOD thing. From what I understand of those who are not opposed to abortion on the pro-life level, abortion is seen as a necessary evil, utilized far too much but still having a place in our society. I don't agree with this, but I can recognize that it's not as black-and-white as you seem to be painting it.
I also think that you really should read every post carefully, as their authors have taken the time to respond to questions you've put forth.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Paddy L wrote:
quote:
Abortion clinics in the UK are required to account the numbers of abortions on women outside the UK. The number of abortions performed on Northern Irish women is actually very low and is not a great concern to us.
Paddy
Dunno about anything else, but your geography certainly needs work. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Northern Ireland is part of the UK - so the statistics for NI would only refer to abortions performed in that region. Try looking under Southern Ireland or Eire ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
Ruth W:
"I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently which read: "Against abortion? Don't have one.""
A rather right-wing position (reminiscient of Thatcher's policies).
Ruth? Right-Wing? Priceless.
Anyway...
Little tip:
quote:
That's like saying "I'm opposed to the Jewish holocaust, but if Nazis want to kill them then why should I force my morality on them?'.
sigh. Godwin's Law: Don't invoke the Nazis or everyone stops taking you seriously
Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Did I suggest Rowan Williams was half-hearted ? Not at all, merely that he recognises that from his perspective, there is a long way to go before his ideal of no abortion would be feasible.
Monaco is an absolute monarchy ruled by a Roman catholic prince. Most of its inhabitants are tax exiles, who are not native to Monaco. All the local population are RC.
Finally, as an illegitimate adopted 40 year old, I have plenty of good reasons not to be 'pro-abortion', but I don't think its as simple as you suggest, and I think most people are somewhere in the middle between the two strongly held positions. Including Tony Blair, who is not personally pro-abortion, as he has stated many times.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Paddy, mate:
quote:
The brain is so fundamental to all human existence that it is now almost universally agreed, both by doctors and laypersons, that when the brain is dead the person is dead.
Source - NHS Direct
UK enough for you?
What exactly do you think does constitute death anyway?
Now stop crusading and start engaging.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
I've been giving MM a hard time elsewhere but, on this thread ... MM:
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
