Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Why don't Anglicans do enough on abortion?

Printer-friendly view

»	Ship of Fools » Ship's Locker » Limbo » Purgatory: Why don't Anglicans do enough on abortion? (Page 6)

Email this page to a friend or enemy.

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Source: (consider it)

Thread: Purgatory: Why don't Anglicans do enough on abortion?

Lola

Ship's kink
# 627

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
I'm back by popular demand!

In Ireland I partly think that the reason why 6,000 (which remember isn't a particularly high number in comparison to the UK's 180,000 - but still some cause for concern) come to England is because of the taboo of teenage pregnancy and taboo of pre-marital sex. Therefore women would rather have an abortion than be looked down upon in society.

I recommend therefore that teenage pregnancy is seen less as a bad thing and more support offered for single mothers. Measures can be taken at the same time to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies without making it a taboo.

Paddy

Hi Paddy

Two things that strike me on reading your posts:

I don't think that your figures on the number of abortions for UK and Irish women in UK clinics mean much if you leave them as absolutes, given the large disparity between the populations of the UK and Ireland. I don't know for which years your statistics relate, so could you please provide further information (eg population for each country for the same period that your numbers are taken) to enable the incidences to be directly compared?

I'm rather at a loss as to how you can simultaneously reduce the number of teen pregnancies and not make it a taboo. Please could you provide a concrete example of what you propose to achieve this.

Cheers

Lola

Posts: 951 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

Posted

Paddy,
"It is an awful statement to make - it exemplifies how awful such a woman is feeling"
Hold on - a number of you have commented on this as if a pregnant woman would state this. I have not come across any pregnant woman who has ever stated this.
There are quite a lot of women who chose to have terminations because they are depressed and abused. I have come across many. This is, of course, not scientifically statisticated evidence.
"What I want to emphasise is the agony some women go through. A pregnancy may well be looked on as a horrific idea."
To be honest I don't get the impression that women have abortions because they fear the pregnancy. As my mum pointed out first-time mothers are unaware of how painful child-birth actually is until you arrive at the day.
I didn't mean the physical pain, I meant the emotional agony.
"There are many women who have abortions because they think it's the best (of awful choices) they can do for themselves and any children they are bearing."
I still disagree. Although yes women may have an abortion because they believe its the best of awful choices, I don't think they think it's the best for their unborn child. How could anyone really think 'my child is disabled so better it doesn't live' for instance?
Not because the child may be disabled, but because the world is such a horrible place to live in. If you have had a bad time yourself, you may not want to put a child through that, particularly if you are depressed.
" They can't afford tests to find out if they are carrying girls and abort them as richer people would. They can't afford to raise the girls; they would drain the families resources and could not look after the parents when they are old."
I'm not sure if this would be necessarily true. The reason why girls would drain a families' resources (for those who don't know) is because of the marriage system where the woman's family offer a dowry to the potential husband.
There's the cost of feeding and clothing children before they are old enough to marry off, and then the dowry. Richer Indians have tests to check the sex of the foetus and although it's supposed to be illegal, many girl foetuses are aborted.

But if you are poor then the number of potential husbands is going to be reduced since, due to the caste (sp?) system, it's unlikely that families would encourage husbands to marry women from the lower classes. Therefore, in theory, I would have thought the lower classes wouldn't have encountered these problems as much anyway. But this is just my thoughts, I haven't seen enough information on India's sex selection programmes to ascertain whether or not what you state would be true. There is statistical evidence, but I don't know where on the net. In China, too, it's well known that there are now many more boys than girls being born.

You see, Paddy, people all over the world make decisions on abortion because they think they are doing the best they can, for themselves, their families and sometimes the foetus too. They may think they are doing something "not good" but better then something "even worse".

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

Posted

Its certainly not the case that most young people are anti-abortion in the UK, though, and attitudes in Ireland amongst younger people are certainly less hostile to legal abortion.

--------------------
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

Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

Posted

Dear Paddy,

You made the Original Post. You gave the thread its title. Do you really mean to say that you have no comprehension of what it means?

You made some comment about Rowen Williams, without taking the trouble to understand or to clarify what he was saying? Why? Because you had a particular agenda that you wanted to score points in favour of, and actually understanding what you were talking about was a minor detail?
I'm afraid that is the impression that you are conveying.

When are you going to answer where you got your statistic about condom failure from, and exactly what it means?

Please would you share with us exactly how you are able to decide who is pro-life and who is pro-abortion on this thread, and what makes you so sure that everyone fits into one or other of these arbitary categories. I assume that you use "pro-abortion" to mean someone who does not share your exact viewpoint on this topic.

Please would you point to one instance of a "pro-abort" becoming enraged on this thread? I havn't seen anyone getting annoyed by the debate. (And I happen to know the folks here, unlike you.)

One or two of us are indeed getting annoyed because you showing a wilful disregard for the community that you can't be bothered to find out about before posting on - there is a difference between that and reacting to stunning debate. Particularly when the debate is not stunning, but is in fact badly prepared, badly presented, juvenile, condescending, and fails to engage with the majority of points raised.

Abortions don't happen in university debating society meetings. They happen to real people in the real world.

--------------------
"...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

Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I havn't seen anyone getting annoyed by the debate.

should have read I havn't seen anyone getting enraged by the debate.

--------------------
"...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

Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888

Posted

"I'm referring to what I perceive as an insensitive and patronizing style. Yes, you've succeeded in "attracting the attention of others," but not in the way you might think. For me -- someone inclined to agree with you substantively -- what has struck me on this thread has been the arrogance of those who have argued against keeping abortion legal and the moderation of those who have argued for keeping abortion legal."

Arrogance implies unjustified confidence or contempt of others. I don't think I possess either of these two qualities and perhaps the only reason it comes across is because I am dead certain that abortion is wrong.

What makes moderation a good quality? Particularly in this instance.

"Age, time, and experience will."

I'm unsure why so many are hung up on this idea of life experience. How many years justifies life experience? 20? 50? 80?

Furthermore do we really need life experience to argue whether or not an unborn child is human or not?

"You may find that kindness, humility, and sensitivity are more effective advocacy tools"

To some extent and after time. But had I been acted all friendly and compassionate then I wouldn't have attractedd so much attention to this thread (it's already on its sixth page despite having only been running for just over a week).

I wanted to bring attention to the thread because I was quite disturbed at the permissiveness of some. I don't aim to change minds - it takes a long time to achieve that - but rather gauge the opinions here and try to understand how other Christians and non-Christians justify abortion.

Merseymike:

"because it really isn't as simple as you try and make out"

I'm making it simple?

Twilight:

"Nothing would excuse a mother killing her five year old child"

What about killing a premature born child?

"but I do not believe and never will believe that the fetus is the same as that five year old"

Why do you think the five year old is more human than a "foetus" (I'm not sure why this latin word remains in English language when it's meaning in latin is 'little one')?

Also what do you determine as "human"? At what point do we become "human"?

"I for one will never think they have the same value anymore than I will come to think that a man who masturbates has murdered a thousand potential children."

Sperm does not possess human qualities nor can it develop into a human on its own.

Laura:

"However, your assertion that the "pro-abort" arguments have been discredited is absolute crap."

They haven't yet but if you keep swearing they might [Wink]

Lola:

"I don't think that your figures on the number of abortions for UK and Irish women in UK clinics mean much if you leave them as absolutes, given the large disparity between the populations of the UK and Ireland"

Hi Lola

Of course they don't mean much but a bit of simple math will show you the Irish abortion rate is still far below British one. Ireland's population is about 1/12th of England. Yet abortion rate is, even if you go at the highest estimated figure, 1/30th.

"I'm rather at a loss as to how you can simultaneously reduce the number of teen pregnancies and not make it a taboo. Please could you provide a concrete example of what you propose to achieve this."

I live near a town which has a very high teenage pregnancy rate (Ashford). I've worked in South Ashford a fair bit on my rounds and come across some pregnant mothers.

What strikes me is the lack of meaning in their lives and even they seem to imply (albeit sometimes unwittingly) that they wanted a child to give them a purpose and routine. Ashford is an area which has a poor education standard for those in comprehensives and there are very little opportunities for those in the lower economic classes to climb the social ladder.

A friend stated, in the work she does, that one girl said she had a child because she wanted someone to love and to be loved by someone else which suggests family breakdown etc.

We can help give purpose to these girls by improving community spirit and putting more funding into run-down areas, giving them more opportunities.

With globalisation, community is becoming undermined and therefore we do not have that same sense of warmth, belonging and purpose that came with living in, say, a close-knit village. Most people do not live in the area they were brought up in.

Anyway I can't go into full details of my theories becaus we'll be here forever and its past my bed time!! But we can help give purpose to young girls' life without making pregnant teenage mothers the enemy of society.

I think its absolutely appauling how young pregnant girls get treated and wrote a small bit about it in the Daily Mail. I'll post it if you like. What do we aim to achieve in punishing them?

Before I'm go to bed (will respond to others soon):

"attitudes in Ireland amongst younger people are certainly less hostile to legal abortion."

I would disagree. The last abortion referendum showed how strongly pro-life the country is. 50% vote yes, and 50% voted no. But according to IPPF half of those voting no were pro-life (although the yes vote would have made the abortion law more restrictive, it would at the same time have legalised the abortive morning-after-pill - therefore a number of pro-life groups pushed for a No vote).

Now also consider that the turnout was quite low (in the sixties if I remember rightly). Most of these people would have been pro-life because there was no confusion on the pro-choice side. All pro-choice groups wanted to vote no but the pro-life side, as stated, was divided and this is why the many confused didn't vote.

This would suggest then at least 75% of Ireland is pro-life. A clear rejection of abortion surely?

Anyway sorry I can't reply to more. I've got to get up in 8 hours and am quite tired already.

I will try and make an effort to reply to the rest though please be patient!

Best wishes and have a good week all. I start a new job tomorrow [Smile]

Nic-nac Paddy whack.

Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

Posted

quote:
Arrogance implies unjustified confidence or contempt of others. I don't think I possess either of these two qualities and perhaps the only reason it comes across is because I am dead certain that abortion is wrong.

The problem is that many shipmates are convinced that abortion is not wrong.

Your failure to acknowledge that people who disagree on this point may be as intelligent and sincere as you are is arrogance.

You are convinced they are wrong. They are convinced you are wrong. They have shown a greater willingness to pay attention and respond to you than you have to pay attention and respond to them.

Of course you're sure you're right. In most of the discussions on this board everyone who posts is sure they're right. Our rules allow an orderly exchange of ideas. I would never post on a board that did not have such rules.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

Posted

Paddy,

I want to sincerely wish you good luck on your new job, and I hope you stay on board the ship. It really is a wonderful place.

Greta

Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

Posted

Another day … another post from Paddy where he has not checked his basic facts [Disappointed]

quote:
"music industry insiders have rubbished Appleton’s account of these events"

Such as? I believe Appleton on this one since it's unlikely she would attack her managers if they had really done nothing wrong since they might be a tad uneasy.

"Melanie Blatt of All Saints was pregnant at the same time as Appleton and had her child"

But All Saints was more of a girls' group whereas the Appleton's are partly selling on their sex appeal to young men.

I’ve read a number of interviews where the Appleton’s account of all the major events in their book have been rubbished – including this one. Maybe my reading material is less high-brow than yours. [Big Grin]

And the fact that Melanie Blatt of All Saints went on to have her child is actually crucial to anyone’s interpretation of Appleton’s account of the events surrounding her abortion. Both Blatt and the Appleton’s were members of All Saints at the time of their pregnancy. In fact, according to Appleton, both she and Blatt were pregnant at the same time while in the same group[/I[ while [I]being managed by the same people while on the same record label. Blatt went onto have her child and always said that everyone was very supportive of her decision. Appleton didn’t. This, and the fact that other sections of the book have been described by those named in it as being "completely inaccurate" does leave cause for reasonable doubt.

Tubbs

PS logician: I am sorry that you are withdrawing from this thread. [Frown]

Your contributions have been very insightful and thought-provoking. [Not worthy!]

--------------------
"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

Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

Posted

Oh, and the Latin "fetus" means "offspring", not "little one".

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Orb

Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256

Posted

MAN! This thread's STILL going on?! What could you possibly be talking about?

Particularly impressive to see you were discussing linguistics just now, something the Anglican church is famed for under-elaborating in [Wink]

--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed

Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Ian M
Shipmate
# 79

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
...humans don't have the power or knowledge to judge when human life begins at...

Paddy

I just had to pick this out, although I don't imagine Paddy will disclaim it - I'm assuming he'd say it's safer to err on the side of caution when trying to come to some pragmatic conclusion - but that's precisely where others would want to come in with other views.

Dorothea, I neither said nor implied you were extremist, only that pro-life campaigning in general tends to come across as such in the context of our society where - as others have reiterated many times - it is a fact that abortion is legal at present and most people don't even know that other countries might do it differently!

I think there's so much need for people to be offered dispassionate advice rather than (at the very point when they are in difficulties) finding themselves in the midst of a war about rights and wrongs. So there's a lot of scope for sensitive and balanced campaigning to ensure that the medical profession and social services etc. have the support/information they need about the other options - rather than only seeing 'pro-life' as anti-abortion or nothing. Particularly in the light of his admission quoted above, I refuse to accept Paddy's assertion that everything comes down to taking sides - I don't think that we can afford that in this issue that so intricately involves real people's real lives.

I am not going to say any more about the situation that started me thinking more leniently about abortion in practice, other than that it was more a first step than an epiphany, and was a part of a general process of softening of views to take into account the harsh realities of life, which in my experience God tends to break into alongside us, rather than lifting us out of...

Paddy, you call the BBC biased for using 'anti-abortion' rather than 'pro-life', but whatever genuinely 'pro-life' motivations you have, I don't think it's unfair to describe the primary outworking as being 'anti-abortion'. Certainly given the BBC's need to use terms that are clear to its hearers/viewers, and the fact that the 'pro-life' movement has little general profile in the UK, I don't think it's surprising that 'anti-abortion' is the term they use. I would expect them to use 'pro-abortion' rather than 'pro-choice' along similar lines for the opposing campaigners - can anyone confirm this?

Ian

Posts: 332 | From: Surbiton, Surrey, UK | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

Posted

Also, those of us who support legal availability of abortion are hardly 'anti-life'

--------------------
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

The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098

Posted

Well said Merseymike. I've never seen anyone say how wonderful abortion is. I've never seen an abortion clinic advertise along the lines of "have an abortion - it's fun".

Paddy, you say Poland banned abortion. Was this a blanket ban, or under limited circumstances? How easily available in abortion in neighbouring countries? What was the impact on the birth rate (that might show whether women are travelling or having backstreet abortions)?

One valid objection to legalised abortion is when it is used as a contraceptive. This is easy to deal with; stop abortions on the NHS (other than in cases of genuine medical emergency). This would also, IMHO, permit NHS resources to be used more effectively - curing real diseases rather than performing operations which are the result of individuals' moral choices. Women will soon find out that condoms are a much cheaper and more effective way of contraception!

Abortion may well result in trauma. So does having a baby you dont want. So does rearranging your life to have a baby - pregnancy, unlike abortion can't be done secretly within a few hours!. So does having a baby adopted.

Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002 | IP: Logged

Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

Posted

Paddy quote

quote:

Twilight:
Also what do you determine as "human"? At what point do we become "human"?

Sperm does not possess human qualities nor can it develop into a human on its own.

Sometimes I think you answer your own questions Paddy. A zygote can't develop into a human on it's own either. I realize a sperm is quite a step removed from a fertilized egg but it is the life form that just precedes the zygote so I had to use it (crudely, I'm afraid) to make my point; i.e. none of us know exactly when life begins, not you, not me, not scientists, but we do know when a life can exist apart from it's mother. The human race has always known this. Why do you supposed last rights were never administered to miscarriages? Why were they not buried on sacred ground?

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002 | IP: Logged

jlg

What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98

Posted

quote:
jlg:

"I'm still waiting for a response, Paddy. Or perhaps you didn't really mean it when you stated that you were interested to learn my views."

I've read your post before and am pretty certain I responded to it. Perhaps it didn't post or you missed it - probably the former due to dodgy internet connection!!
[quote]

"I never said that I thought abortion was the only solution (I knew every time that I had other options), and I never stated that my pregnancies were "problems". Why are you putting words in my mouth?"

Okay well I would have meant best solution in this situation had I read your post more clearly.

"You say you are "...interested to learn my views", but somehow I get the feeling you are just interested in trying to get me to say something that you can latch onto and exclaim "Ah, she just doesn't realize yet that she has been traumatized by these abortions!""

No, no, no. What would I have to achieve in trying to score some point off of you? I am genuinely interested to learn.

You see because I believe live starts at conception and is significant enough to warrant the right to life, I am predisposed to thinking that the pictures are horrible or display the humanity of the child and inhumanity of the abortion process.

Therefore i seek the opinion of someone who doesn't share my perspective in order to understand if the pictures are effective.

It would be really good if you could say why you don't think they've had any effect. If you feel that I am then using your arguments against you ask me to leave and I promise you I will.

"What does irritate me is people who keep insisting that they know more about me than I do about myself and tell me that I made the wrong decisions and my life would be better if I hadn't had the abortions."

I have sympathy with that view but I don't think those people think they know more about you then you do, rather they think abortion i wrong and therefore your decision was wrong. Their intentions aren't to be patronising.

Apologies once again for seeming not to acknowledge your points. I know how frustrating it can be.

NOTE TO ALL: if you feel I haven't responded then PLEASE let me know. I must admit that where I have been away for a few days I have missed some of the posts.

"But as far as I am concerned, abortion is a private medical matter for the woman and her doctor, and all the laws and restrictions and "protections" are an invasion of privacy."

Interesting you don't see the doctor as an invasion of privacy. This brings me onto a different topic but why don't you see them as intruders?

I have studied a lot about feminism and healthcare (remember not all feminists are pro-abortion so my studies wouldn't contradict my views) and am extremely critical of the amount of power doctors possess.

Anyway before i start, I'll leave it there and wait for your comments.

Best wishes all (if I don't reply for a day or two, its because I am in London - but should reply on Wednesday at the latest). I'm also quite interested in the death penalty thread at the moment but will try to make sure I'm not too caught up there.

Paddy

jlg:

"I'm still waiting for a response, Paddy. Or perhaps you didn't really mean it when you stated that you were interested to learn my views."

I've read your post before and am pretty certain I responded to it. Perhaps it didn't post or you missed it - probably the former due to dodgy internet connection!!

"I never said that I thought abortion was the only solution (I knew every time that I had other options), and I never stated that my pregnancies were "problems". Why are you putting words in my mouth?"

Okay well I would have meant best solution in this situation had I read your post more clearly.

"You say you are "...interested to learn my views", but somehow I get the feeling you are just interested in trying to get me to say something that you can latch onto and exclaim "Ah, she just doesn't realize yet that she has been traumatized by these abortions!""

No, no, no. What would I have to achieve in trying to score some point off of you? I am genuinely interested to learn.

You see because I believe live starts at conception and is significant enough to warrant the right to life, I am predisposed to thinking that the pictures are horrible or display the humanity of the child and inhumanity of the abortion process.

Therefore i seek the opinion of someone who doesn't share my perspective in order to understand if the pictures are effective.

It would be really good if you could say why you don't think they've had any effect. If you feel that I am then using your arguments against you ask me to leave and I promise you I will.

"What does irritate me is people who keep insisting that they know more about me than I do about myself and tell me that I made the wrong decisions and my life would be better if I hadn't had the abortions."

I have sympathy with that view but I don't think those people think they know more about you then you do, rather they think abortion i wrong and therefore your decision was wrong. Their intentions aren't to be patronising.

Apologies once again for seeming not to acknowledge your points. I know how frustrating it can be.

NOTE TO ALL: if you feel I haven't responded then PLEASE let me know. I must admit that where I have been away for a few days I have missed some of the posts.

"But as far as I am concerned, abortion is a private medical matter for the woman and her doctor, and all the laws and restrictions and "protections" are an invasion of privacy."

Interesting you don't see the doctor as an invasion of privacy. This brings me onto a different topic but why don't you see them as intruders?

I have studied a lot about feminism and healthcare (remember not all feminists are pro-abortion so my studies wouldn't contradict my views) and am extremely critical of the amount of power doctors possess.

Anyway before i start, I'll leave it there and wait for your comments.

Best wishes all (if I don't reply for a day or two, its because I am in London - but should reply on Wednesday at the latest). I'm also quite interested in the death penalty thread at the moment but will try to make sure I'm not too caught up there.

Paddy

I'm sorry, but this is such a muddle of what I have posted and your supposed responses that I can't take the time to sort it out (especially since you can't be bothered to use proper quote code, including referencing the exact post and/or indicating where your have deleted parts of posts).

Too little, too late, Paddy.

Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Lola

Ship's kink
# 627

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:

Lola:

"I don't think that your figures on the number of abortions for UK and Irish women in UK clinics mean much if you leave them as absolutes, given the large disparity between the populations of the UK and Ireland"

Hi Lola

Of course they don't mean much but a bit of simple math will show you the Irish abortion rate is still far below British one. Ireland's population is about 1/12th of England. Yet abortion rate is, even if you go at the highest estimated figure, 1/30th.

"I'm rather at a loss as to how you can simultaneously reduce the number of teen pregnancies and not make it a taboo. Please could you provide a concrete example of what you propose to achieve this."

I live near a town which has a very high teenage pregnancy rate (Ashford). I've worked in South Ashford a fair bit on my rounds and come across some pregnant mothers.

What strikes me is the lack of meaning in their lives and even they seem to imply (albeit sometimes unwittingly) that they wanted a child to give them a purpose and routine. Ashford is an area which has a poor education standard for those in comprehensives and there are very little opportunities for those in the lower economic classes to climb the social ladder.

A friend stated, in the work she does, that one girl said she had a child because she wanted someone to love and to be loved by someone else which suggests family breakdown etc.

We can help give purpose to these girls by improving community spirit and putting more funding into run-down areas, giving them more opportunities.

With globalisation, community is becoming undermined and therefore we do not have that same sense of warmth, belonging and purpose that came with living in, say, a close-knit village. Most people do not live in the area they were brought up in.

Anyway I can't go into full details of my theories becaus we'll be here forever and its past my bed time!! But we can help give purpose to young girls' life without making pregnant teenage mothers the enemy of society.

Nic-nac Paddy whack.

Dear Paddy,

Wouldn't it be stronger (for your purposes) of convincing people if you posted the informaiton in a readily comparable form to begin with?

See, I think that, leaving aside the fact that your incidences of abortion were for the UK as a whole and you have given me information re: the population of England alone, which is simply sloppiness on your part, I can then take what you have said and do different things with it.

For example, couldn't I could say that on population size alone I would expect the UK incidence of abortion to be 12 times as large as that in Ireland? So I could divide 180,000 by 12 and get 15,000 UK abortions per the same population in Ireland as a figure to compare to the 9,000 actual Irish abortions. Which doesn't look quite as alarming a difference.

Alternatively, I could multiply the Irish 9,000 by 12 to get 72,000 Irish abortions per the same population of the UK to compare to the UK's 180,000 which still looks quite a big difference.

That is why, I think it would be better to tighten up your information. If you don't want people to nitpick then the best way is to make harder for them to do so.

I think that instead of providing tight information you have gone for the most dramatic. I think that is why people on both sides of this debate are both being accused of extremism.

If you are going to be a professional activist in this area my advice would be to avoid sensationalism. After all, its an emotive subject on its own.

IMHO

Lola

Oh, and and I almost forgot, you were going to tell me your ideas on reducing teen pregnancies without making it a taboo. You talked about helping your girls and their children, fabulous, good job, but how will this cut the pregnancy rate?

Posts: 951 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Ms Byronic
Apprentice
# 3942

Posted

Good evening all.

I can't help feeling posters are being a bit hard on Paddy here.

I understand that the latest UN report shows that Ireland has the lowest abortion rate in the EU. Before anyone asks - this report took into account all those abortions taking place overseas (namely the UK).

It seems to me that there is something to be learned from countries, such as Ireland, which have low abortion rates. If that means constitutional protection for the unborn then so be it.

I think we all agree that the British abortion rate is phenomenally high and simply ridiculous. There must be a better way of handling crisis pregnancies than this.

Posts: 22 | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Ms Byronic
Apprentice
# 3942

Posted

I would like to add a little something about reducing the teenage pregnancy rate.

It seems to me that UK government policies in the last three decades, which have focused on increasing access to birth control drugs and devices and providing value-free sex 'education' to young people have been utterly counterproductive.

If anything is to be learnt from such initiatives it is that they don't work and certainly don't provide value for money.

I think something else (dare I mention the term 'abstinence education'?) should be tried. It seems to be working in the US.

Oh, another idea: why not have gigantic posters advertising the CSA anywhere young males congregate? I have a brilliant idea for one of them. A picture of tennis player Boris Becker and a quotation of his in bold letters. 'Two minutes of sex cost me £2million'. That would convince young males to keep their pants on!

Posts: 22 | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

JimT

Ship'th Mythtic
# 142

Posted

quote:
why not have gigantic posters advertising the CSA anywhere young males congregate? I have a brilliant idea for one of them. A picture of tennis player Boris Becker and a quotation of his in bold letters. 'Two minutes of sex cost me £2million'.

You are OK with telling young females that there's 2 million pounds in it for them if they just take their panties off for two minutes? [Big Grin]

Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Ms Byronic:
That would convince young males to keep their pants on!

No it wouldn't. Young males (as well as young ursines) would just say "What a plonker!".

bb

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

Posted

Ms Byronic wrote:

quote:
I can't help feeling posters are being a bit hard on Paddy here.

In what way? In asking him to discuss his ideas in relation to what other people have said rather than just posting endless essays. To back up his assertions with independent data and to provide sources for the same. It all sounds fairly reasonable to me [Big Grin]

quote:
I understand that the latest UN report shows that Ireland has the lowest abortion rate in the EU. Before anyone asks - this report took into account all those abortions taking place overseas (namely the UK).<snip>

Please would you supply a link to the report you are citing so other posters can check this for themselves. Many thanks.

quote:

I think we all agree that the British abortion rate is phenomenally high and simply ridiculous. There must be a better way of handling crisis pregnancies than this.

Do you have any concrete suggestions on how this could be done?

quote:

It seems to me that UK government policies in the last three decades, which have focused on increasing access to birth control drugs and devices and providing value-free sex 'education' to young people have been utterly counterproductive.

...

I think something else (dare I mention the term 'abstinence education'?) should be tried. It seems to be working in the US.

Why should this all be down to the "government" or "the schools"? [Roll Eyes]

Surely a teenager's family also has a role [Big Grin]

One quote from a sermon that's stayed with me over the years (one of the few!) was the following:

"Parents ... if you don't teach your children values and morals then Disney will

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

ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
"Parents ... if you don't teach your children values and morals then Disney will

Well, there are worse sources for values and morals... and while I'd dearly love to think it's the exception, many parents are terrifyingly bad sources. I've known some people who have had to learn (from other sources, some media, some from schools, etc.) good morals, behaviour, etc, in spite of their parents' horrifically bad and often twisted mindsets, morals etc.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
"Parents ... if you don't teach your children values and morals then Disney will
Well, there are worse sources for values and morals... and while I'd dearly love to think it's the exception, many parents are terrifyingly bad sources. I've known some people who have had to learn (from other sources, some media, some from schools, etc.) good morals, behaviour, etc, in spite of their parents' horrifically bad and often twisted mindsets, morals etc.

True.

But what he was addressing was the attitude that exists that “I don’t have to teach my children about <blah> because that’s someone else’s job …” The one and a half hours a week at church covers the Christian thing. School does most of the moral stuff in general studies / RE while the physical stuff gets done in biology. Sorted. [Wink]

But that isn’t enough – and the values learnt may not be the values you want passed on. (Even if the children reject them later or those values suck – which is a separate discussion). Maybe, if the pro-life movement truly wants to win hearts and minds, it needs to target someone else other than the government.

Which brings me onto another point – one that I hesitate to make as it makes me sound like a Daily Mail reader. [Embarrassed]

The pro-life posters (with a few honorable exceptions) have said that women who want to keep their babies, and have abortions for financial reasons, should receive support from “someone”. I’m assuming that the “someone” is the government / taxpayer. But the popular assumption is that the social security system has already got this covered. [Big Grin]

Believe me, I have lost count of the number of times I have heard friends with children express great resentment about their struggles to bring up their families while “the family on benefits down the road gets it all for free …” (This isn’t an accurate perception, but it’s there). Can’t see a proposed mass overhaul of the benefits system anywhere to prevent abortions winning anyone any friends …

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

BuzzyBee

Ship's Drummer
# 3283

Posted

Its taken me 3 lunch-time breaks to catch up with what's gone before, so sorry for joining in late:

quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:

After all, what person would risk her life to have an abortion rather than to give her child up for adoption?

Paddy: The following is a quote from someone who once believed the same as you (though didn't crusade about it). She got pregnant but decided that she wasn't emotionally or financially ready for motherhood, so she had the baby and gave it up for adoption at birth. Three years on, she still hasn't recovered from that experience, maybe she never will. She now says:

"I'm never putting myself through that again, if I ever get pregnant again and am still not ready, I'm having an abortion"

As a man, you can be thankful that you will never actually have to make this most excruciating of decisions. However, of all the options available, having the baby and giving it up for adoption is the most difficult, the most painful and the most heart-breaking of them all.

It is very easy to conclude what is right and what is wrong during college debate classes. I know, I've been there. Probably so have most of the other people disagreeing with you on this board. We've since found out that the world is not black and white, and it's different when it happens to you.

--------------------
BuzzyBee
~~~~~~
Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. Martin Luther King, Jr

Posts: 465 | From: Bristol | Registered: Sep 2002 | IP: Logged

DorotheaLydgate
Apprentice
# 3893

Posted

BuzzyBee - that's sad, but if you couldn't predict how you would feel about adoption then do you think that you could predict with certainty how you would feel about abortion?

I have a friend who has been in this situation who believes that the solution is more open fostering so that someone helps look after the child temporarily.

Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888

Posted

Moo:

"Your failure to acknowledge that people who disagree on this point may be as intelligent and sincere as you are is arrogance."

I have never stated or implied that I think I am more intelligent than others' on the board. Despite being lucky enough to go to Cambridge University, I am under no illusions about my intelligence. I am far less intelligent than some on the boards and my achievements in life are mainly due to my determination, work ethic and creativity.

"They have shown a greater willingness to pay attention and respond to you than you have to pay attention and respond to them."

Moo, please give me a chance. I have taken on the almost impossible task of trying to respond to everyone. I only spend 3 hours a week roughly on this messageboard. It is simply impossible for me to go through everyone's post with a fine tooth comb.

As for the idea that you're sure that I'm sure I'm right...is it not impossible to hold an opinion without believing that opinion is right? Why else believe in something?

It seems rather pointless therefore to make play of the fact that I think I am right. We all think we're right!

Mrs Tubbs:

You mention Melanie Blatt but I am not referring to the All Saints, rather the Appleton sisters. In short, what has Melanie Blatt got to do with the price of peaches?

Karl:

"Oh, and the Latin "fetus" means "offspring", not "little one"."

To be honest I've seen various interpretations of foetus. There doesn't seem to be a set one although I rely on 'little one' since a friend who speaks fluent Latin is determined that that is the correct translation.

Ian M:

"I don't think that we can afford that in this issue that so intricately involves real people's real lives."

I apologise to quote from you Ian, but a similar statement has been made by many others. It seems a rather trivial thing to point out that abortion deals with "real" people and "real" lives. We are engaging in psycho-babble.

Abortion is the only option given by society to women. But as I have stated once already - babies are not the problem. Women who have an abortion don't do so because they see babies as evil or a problem! It's because they often don't receive enough support from the family, or because they fear public humiliation (e.g. teenage pregnancy or single motherhood), or their finances are low etc.

The legalisation of abortion has stopped government from investing in solving the real problems behind abortion. This alone warrants a reason for outlawing abortion.

Abortion doesn't help women, and it certainly does not help children!

"I would expect them to use 'pro-abortion' rather than 'pro-choice' along similar lines for the opposing campaigners - can anyone confirm this?"

I follow your logic but there is without doubt a deliberate attempt to smear pro-lifers as "anti-abortion or anti-woman". On one webpage on news.bbc.co.uk they have a picture of a middle-aged man holding up a cross above an "anti-abortion" article. Such a picture is highly insulting to pro-life feminists or atheists.

I think the BBC is deliberately being political. Why else would they have censored our broadcast? Why else would the first episode of Spooks have focused on a religious fundamentalist anti-abortion group which was using bombs? (there has never been any incidences of pro-life terrorism in the UK).

Spooks dealt with the MI5 yet political terrorism doesn't fall under the MI5's remit anyway!!

Merseymike:

"Also, those of us who support legal availability of abortion are hardly 'anti-life'"

What are you then?

Ian S:

"Paddy, you say Poland banned abortion. Was this a blanket ban, or under limited circumstances? "

Blanket ban except in some minor circumstances. There were only 130 abortions in Poland in 2000.

"What was the impact on the birth rate (that might show whether women are travelling or having backstreet abortions)?"

Birth rate and abortions have little connection. Though it will have some studies show that where abortion is restricted people simply take less chances.

For instance amongst 15-19 year olds South Africa has a very high birth rate yet contraception and abortion is easily available. Poland on the other hand has an extremely low birth rate amongst 15-19 year olds and yet abortion is illegal and it only has a 19% contraception prevalence (takn from UNFPA statistics: State of World population 2002).

Similarly Columbia's birth rate amongst that age category is over seven times greater than Polands and it's contraceptive prevalance is 65%. I'm unaware of Columbia's abortion laws.

I am also unaware of statistics of Polish women travelling to neighbouring countries. But remember Poland is not yet part of the European Union and it is thus very difficult to travel from one country to another. I highly doubt therefore that women are travelling in vast numbers to other countries - though there will inevitably be a handful.

"This is easy to deal with; stop abortions on the NHS (other than in cases of genuine medical emergency)."

From a pro-abortion position it would be impossible to stop abortions on the NHS. THere would be cries of discrimination against the poor. Abortions can be very expensive privately. An average abortion costs between £500-£600 though the cost increases dramatically the later you are in your pregnancy.

"Abortion may well result in trauma. So does having a baby you dont want. "

The trauma associated with having a baby is firstly not linked directly to the baby itself (rather linked to the loss in a previous lifestyle, loss in independence etc) whereas post-abortion trauma is linked DIRECTLY to the abortion. Secondly, most trauma related to pregnancy takes place when the mother finds out she is unexpectedly pregnant. I.e. after the initial shock and acceptance its unusual for women to continue to suffer from trauma.

"unlike abortion can't be done secretly within a few hours!."

Errr hang on - abortion can't be done secretly within a few hours. Although for most abortions women do not have to stay overnight at a hospital, they involve a lot of planning, sorting out etc. It's also not terribly secretive - after all two doctors must allow you to have an abortion. It would be uncommon for women not to tell a loved one or someone close due to the emotional trauma involved too.

I'll end there for tonight.

NOTE TO SELF: GOT UP TO TWILIGHT.

Paddy

Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

Posted

ya' know what it is about the "pro-life" movement*? its that its a lie. they aren't pro-"life", not unless you limit the definition of "life" to the nine months pre-birth. the intrest of the so-called "pro-life" movement ends at birth. the movement doesn't concern itself with anything other than those nine months. now, single-issue movements are fine, but call it what it is. if the movement is truly pro-life, than it should concern itself with any life or death issue, at the very least. i'm not even talking about quality of life issues, i'm talking about out-and-out matters of life-and-death. there are many. yet the only one that the so-called "pro-life" movement concerns itself with is abortion. now, if thats what you think is important, so be it. but call it by its right name. its not being "pro-life", its being anti-abortion.

*please note, i am refering here to the movement, not to any individual member of the movement, amny of whom do concern themselves with greater issues.

--------------------
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

JimT

Ship'th Mythtic
# 142

Posted

quote:
Merseymike: "Also, those of us who support legal availability of abortion are hardly 'anti-life'"

Paddy's reply: What are you then?

What answer do you really expect? Do you really expect an answer of "My God, I am 'anti-life'?" Do you really think you can prick someone's conscience with that sort of pointed reply? Do you think you are making some dramatic gesture that will score points with people who are listening in?

You may as well have deleted the rest of your post and spared us the pretence that you want to engage people where they are. You dismiss without comment that the other side is "anti-life." What more needs to be said?

Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Arrietty

Ship's borrower
# 45

Posted

I have already said that I am now probably anti-abortion on a personal level but I would not support the outlawing of abortion. And I certainly do not condemn women for having abortions.

If that makes me anti life then so be it. I have no defence. However, I think Nicole's points on this are highly relevant.

--------------------
i-church

Online Mission and Ministry

Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Rex Monday

None but a blockhead
# 2569

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
ya' know what it is about the "pro-life" movement*? its that its a lie. they aren't pro-"life", not unless you limit the definition of "life" to the nine months pre-birth...

If only this were true.

Spontaneous abortion -- defined as the natural loss of a foetus weighing less than 500 grams before 20 weeks gestation counted from the first day of the last menstrual period -- is thought to occur in anything up to 50% of pregnancies, for a very wide variety of reasons. It, like medically caused abortions, is a complex matter, and many aspects of this phenomenon are poorly understood. Mostly, it's thought to be the body's natural reaction to chromosomal abnormalities, uterine abnormalities, exposure to environmental or other substances, maternal heavy lifting... but it's under-reported (many spontaneous abortions are thought to occur without the mother ever becoming aware she was pregnant in the first place) and the subject of some debate in the medical world.

However, if the logic of those opposed to medical abortions is followed, this is the biggest single ongoing tragedy in the history of mankind. Imagine if 50% of one year old babies were dying of 'natural causes' -- there'd be a huge outcry, crash programmes would be kicked off investigating the causes and possible cures of this terrible phenomenon, and the scale of the reaction to the problem would far outweigh that we've seen in response to cancer, AIDS, starvation, the works...

This hasn't happened. Why? Because most people consider foetuses before a certain stage of development as not the same as children. There is an opinion that spontaneous abortions are 'nature's way' of not bringing badly malformed or unviable foetuses to term, and most people seem to think this way.

Clearly, those who feel abortion is fundamentally wrong cannot hold this opinion. Therefore, they should be most concerned not with the small percentage of abortions that are deliberately caused but with the overwhelming percentage of abortions that occur naturally. Don't those foetuses have the same rights as any others?

So where are the campaigns by the anti-abortionists to fund research into spontaneous abortion? Why are they wasting their time and effort in campaigning against one very minor cause of abortion, when they could be doing so much better working towards an understanding of spontaneous abortion?

Don't they care about the unborn child?

R

--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.

Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

DorotheaLydgate
Apprentice
# 3893

Posted

I had a friend at university who saw the world in a very different way from me. She put individual choice first, she was an atheist, life was about immediate pleasure. She was clever, efficient, driven, and what's wrong with that? After all it's a jolly good idea to look after number one, who will if you don't, but it was a kind of capitalist mentality, get what you can and fend for yourself. Survival of the fittest.

I see the world in a different way and this is why I think prolife is more complicated than just being anti-abortion, (even though in fact some of us are very concerned by medical research, IVF, cloning, designer babies, commercialism, hospice work, pregnancy support, which makes it *not* simply anti-abortion but really pro-life-protecting alternatives, which easily feeds into questions including treatment of the sick, poor, old, young) - because it is about whether you see the world through the eyes of one individual and their choices as paramount, to the exclusion of the rights of another living human being, where one can survive or gain at the expense of another, or whether you see society as a community where all have something to give and all are respected.

This to me informs policy areas such as health, education, family law, medical research, foreign policies, criminal justice.

I see Christianity as a guide on difficult issues. So how does Christianity inform the abortion debate?

Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

DorotheaLydgate
Apprentice
# 3893

Posted

To Rex Monday - do you think the death of a man from natural causes, say a heart attack, is morally equivalent to a man being stabbed in the heart and his heart stopping?

Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Tom Day
Ship's revolutionary
# 3630

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
but it was a kind of capitalist mentality, get what you can and fend for yourself. Survival of the fittest. I see the world in a different way and this is why I think prolife is more complicated than just being anti-abortion

DL, are you saying here that Pro-Choice is a Captalist policy, while being Pro-Life makes you a socialist?

Personally i dont think Abortion should be a political issue, left or right issue - it is a moral issue. And i know this point has probably been made before, but i don't think our government can / should place its own morals on its people.

tom

Tom

--------------------
My allotment blog

Posts: 6473 | From: My Sofa | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

DorotheaLydgate
Apprentice
# 3893

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by day_thomas:

quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
but it was a kind of capitalist mentality, get what you can and fend for yourself. Survival of the fittest. I see the world in a different way and this is why I think prolife is more complicated than just being anti-abortion
DL, are you saying here that Pro-Choice is a Captalist policy, while being Pro-Life makes you a socialist?

Personally i dont think Abortion should be a political issue, left or right issue - it is a moral issue. And i know this point has probably been made before, but i don't think our government can / should place its own morals on its people.

tom

Tom

hi Tom

I take your points on board. I didn't mean to suggest that capitalists are always pro-choice/pro-abortion and socialists are always prolife. I know plenty of people who are exceptions to that, either right wing and prolife or left wing and pro-choice/pro-abortion.

Neither did I mean that all atheists are necessarily pro-choice, though I personally see it as a contradiction in terms for any Christian to be pro-choice.

However, I think there are two distinct approaches - that could broadly be described as
individualism versus putting others first and I believe that Christianity falls totally in the second camp.

If your rationale for being prolife or pro-choice/pro-abortion then determines how you see the world, and informs your attitude to social justice issues, aid to the third world, domestic policies and health and education, and industry, then prolife is a political ideology just like any other.

I don't think it is possible to see abortion as apolitical, since the crux of the issue (whether you are prolife or pro-choice) is whether you support abortion/embryology/cloning/euthanasia legislation etc. I could not be prolife without wanting abortion to be abolished and real prolife alternatives to help women and that is a political process.

Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Arrietty

Ship's borrower
# 45

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
She put individual choice first, she was an atheist, life was about immediate pleasure.

[TANGENT]
However, many atheists are deeply moral and altruistic. They disagree with Christians about the source of morality and altruism. Conversely, I have met many professing Christians who put themselves first in most situations. I have heard many discussions on church committees about giving substantailly in time and/or effort to those outside the church where the basic question being asked is 'what's in it for us?' Christianity through the ages has been used by Christians as a justification for things like slavery and apartheid.
[/TANGENT]

--------------------
i-church

Online Mission and Ministry

Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
I personally see it as a contradiction in terms for any Christian to be pro-choice.

For this to be a contradiction in terms I suppose you would have to show the following:

Christians should all believe that killing a human being under any circumstances is wrong
if this is true then you must show that all Christians should believe that a foetus is a human being
if you can show that all Christians should believe the feotus is a human and shouldn't be killed under any circumstances then you have to show that Christians should enforce their opinions on people who don't share our faith

Show all those then, yes, a Christian being pro-choice is probably a contradiction. Personally, I'm not sure we can get past the first ....

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

Posted

DorotheaLydgate,

Your portrait of the Pro-Choice person as selfish and un-Christian may well be true in some cases, just as there are un-Christian Pro-Life people who are more interested in punishing the women who get abortions than they are in saving the lives of the un-born. Rex Monday's post points that out very well.

I know so many kind hearted people who are Pro-choice out of a Christian love and sympathy for; a. young couples with a badly malformed fetus and a terrible decision to make, b. a fetus that may grow into a person who faces a life of pain and misery, c. a teenager or unprepared woman who is unable to raise a child herself but feels she can't face the ordeal of giving up a full term baby to another person, d. foster parents who bond with children and then have to give them back to biological parents.

Life is complicated and sympathy and Christian kindness can come in many forms.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002 | IP: Logged

Rex Monday

None but a blockhead
# 2569

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
To Rex Monday - do you think the death of a man from natural causes, say a heart attack, is morally equivalent to a man being stabbed in the heart and his heart stopping?

I haven't said anything about morals, nor do I intend to. To the dead person, the case is moot. I am saying that given the anti-choice people ('pro-life' strikes me as being a particularly nasty piece of propaganda. Who here is anti-life?) say a foetus has full human rights, and that the vast majority of abortions are not medical, it is curious that the anti-choice people choose to concentrate *all* their efforts on a tiny minority of abortions. It's like a government choosing not to fund any hospitals while hiring millions of policemen, despite the fact that 90% of their citizens are dying from illness not murder.

Whatever the anti-choice brigade's motivations, they can't be because they truly believe the foetus has full human rights. If they did, then sheer humanity should demand they direct a proportionate amount of their efforts towards the biggest cause of abortions, not a minor one that happens to coincide with their personal political agenda. By their deeds shall ye know them, I think the saying goes...

R

--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.

Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888

Posted

Twilight:

quote:
A zygote can't develop into a human on it's own either.

I disagree. Although a zygote is smaller than a grain of sand the zygote contains the information that makes each human being unique. This is the same person that will become a baby, then a child, will go to secondary school, drive a car, become old et cetera.

From the moment of conception we are significant. From this moment we now know the mapping of the human body has already been determined.

quote:
i.e. none of us know exactly when life begins,

I think the scientific community is in agreement that life begins at conception. I think what you meant is when that life is significant - that is where the debate begins.

Lola:

quote:
Alternatively, I could multiply the Irish 9,000 by 12 to get 72,000 Irish abortions per the same population of the UK to compare to the UK's 180,000 which still looks quite a big difference.

I agreed with what you said in your post. But just want to make the point that the estimated figure is 6,000 not 9,000.

The only part I do not agree with is this:

quote:
I think that instead of providing tight information you have gone for the most dramatic. I think that is why people on both sides of this debate are both being accused of extremism.

If you are going to be a professional activist in this area my advice would be to avoid sensationalism. After all, its an emotive subject on its own.

I'm rather at a loss as to what you are referring to as being 'sensationalist'. Please be clearer.

Buzzybee:

quote:
We've since found out that the world is not black and white, and it's different when it happens to you.

I don't see how I am asserting this is a black and white issue. Far from it - I have continually claimed that abortion is often promoted as the only way of solving a woman's problems. Yet promoting abortion is in effect claiming that the baby is the problem.

But the baby is not the problem - single motherhood, lack of financial support, lack of familial support, lack of support from friends, lack of flexibility in the capitalist system (meaning women have to choose between job or baby), lack of respectability for adoption etc are all the real problems.

Abortion is a easy solution for governments. It's much cheaper to get women to terminate their pregnancies than to, say, force employees to increase maternity leave, force boyfriends to contribute to the welfare of the unborn child, fund programs giving support to women or helping to subsidise the costs of raising a child.

However there is one matter which is black and white - and that is whether or not the child is entitled to the right to life. We live in an age with ultrasound, photographic and video imagery of the unborn child. Thanks to scientific research we now know the unborn child's heart begins to beat between 21-25 days, and brain waves are first recorded at 42 days. Despite all the vast information available we continue to deny the humanity of the child. Why?

NicoleMRW:

quote:
ya' know what it is about the "pro-life" movement*? its that its a lie. they aren't pro-"life", not unless you limit the definition of "life" to the nine months pre-birth. the intrest of the so-called "pro-life" movement ends at birth. the movement doesn't concern itself with anything other than those nine months. now, single-issue movements are fine, but call it what it is. if the movement is truly pro-life, than it should concern itself with any life or death issue, at the very least. i'm not even talking about quality of life issues, i'm talking about out-and-out matters of life-and-death. there are many. yet the only one that the so-called "pro-life" movement concerns itself with is abortion. now, if thats what you think is important, so be it. but call it by its right name. its not being "pro-life", its being anti-abortion.

*please note, i am refering here to the movement, not to any individual member of the movement, amny of whom do concern themselves with greater issues.

Pro-lifers don't just deal with the issue of abortion. We also deal with euthanasia and then some of us branch into other issues - like being opposed to the death penalty.

If you can find any organisation which calls itself pro-life and deals solely with the abortion issue I shall eat my hat.

Perhaps the reason why you believe this is because pro-life organisations do concentrate on the abortion issue. This is because unborn children cannot defend themselves - the elderly can. Furthermore abortion is the area where the most life is lost.

Rex Monday

quote:
Why are they wasting their time and effort in campaigning against one very minor cause of abortion, when they could be doing so much better working towards an understanding of spontaneous abortion?

Firstly - do not feel as though I have ignored the rest of your post. for the purpose of shortening my quotes, I have decided to use just this one since it encapsulates pretty much what you say in the entire post.

We do actually work towards an understanding of spontaneous abortion.

In some respects spontaneous abortion is worse since it deprives the mother of a child who she really did want.

I know one woman who went through so much tragedy. She is childless after having 7 spontaneous abortions. Because she had so much time off work with depression she was forced out of a job (she was a primary school teacher). Had I been older I would have fought damn hard for her. It was appauling she was forced out of her job basically because she was depressed. There is something seriously wrong with a society that does not allow people to mourn.

Imagine how she feels when she hears that 180,000 abortions occur every year.

One of the major reasons for spontaneous abortions is age. After a mother reaches 30 the chance of miscarriage increases dramatically (and her fertility rate decreases dramatically).

That is why I am keen on the government to encourage people to get married younger and have children younger so they don't fall prone to childlessness and to increase Britain's low birth rate of 1.6 (we currently need 2.4).

But there is not an awful lot pro-life organisations can do. We tend to leave most of the research up to the relevant scientists since they obviously have more expertise and knowledge (there are pro-life scientists who carry out a lot of research in this field). We also cannot force people to have children earlier.

There is nothing morally wrong in spontaneous abortion. You cannot blame a person for it. Abortion on the other hand involves the intentional killing of a child.

DayThomas:

quote:
Personally i dont think Abortion should be a political issue

Moral issues are political issues. Abortion infringes the right to life and it is the duty of governments to protect basic human rights.

Furthermore abortion impacts on the power of government, our quality of life, the economy - all because of one thing: demographics. Because our birth rate is currently 1.6, in 100 years time our population will be half that of today. We won't be able to afford the NHS, let alone state pensions, because we won't have enough working people paying taxes plus the percentage of people over 65 will be ever-increasing.

We currently need 1.2 million immigrants a year (we only have just under 200,000). Alternatively we need to increase the birth rate and outlaw abortion.

--
The other posts refer more to Dorothea so I shall leave them to my trusty ally!

Best wishes all
Paddy

Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888

Posted

To raise a few other points:

1. No-one has stated at what stage the unborn child should be awarded rights.

2. Have you ever read Psalm 139 before:

"For it was you who created my being,
knit me together in my mother's womb.
I thank you for the wonder of my being,
for the wonders of all your creation.

Already you knew my soul,
my body held no secret from you,
when I was being fashioned in secret
and moulded in the depths of the earth."

Paddy

Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

coffee jim
Shipmate
# 3510

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
She put individual choice first, she was an atheist, life was about immediate pleasure.
[TANGENT]
However, many atheists are deeply moral and altruistic. They disagree with Christians about the source of morality and altruism. Conversely, I have met many professing Christians who put themselves first in most situations. I have heard many discussions on church committees about giving substantailly in time and/or effort to those outside the church where the basic question being asked is 'what's in it for us?' Christianity through the ages has been used by Christians as a justification for things like slavery and apartheid.
[/TANGENT]

Arrietty - [Not worthy!]

One of the things that really pisses me off about so many Christians (and others) is their assumption that non-theists are morally underdeveloped. There are plenty of atheists and agnostics whose morality rises far above 'imaginary super-daddy will punish me if I'm bad'.

Posts: 367 | From: Belfast | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
That is why I am keen on the government to encourage people to get married younger and have children younger so they don't fall prone to childlessness and to increase Britain's low birth rate of 1.6 (we currently need 2.4).
<snip>
We currently need 1.2 million immigrants a year (we only have just under 200,000). Alternatively we need to increase the birth rate and outlaw abortion.

Why do we need to maintain the UK population? Given that there are good arguments that the world is overpopulated (or soon will be - but that is another subject) why not make a small start in the UK - and accept more immigrants if we really do need to maintain UK population. But, if this line of argument is to be followed it's probably best to start a new thread since it isn't directly related to abortion.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Stoo

Mighty Pirate
# 254

Posted

I should have thought that younger marriage leads to a higher divorce rate.

--------------------
This space left blank

Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Laura
General nuisance
# 10

Posted

Paddy, that's a nice Psalm. What's your point?

You asked for an organization that is dedicated solely to the "pro-life" cause. Here's one: Operation Save America

It used to be called "Operation Rescue". Its sole purpose is to blockade abortion clinics.

From its "purpose" page:

quote:
Operation Save America unashamedly takes up the cause of preborn children in the name of Jesus Christ. We employ only biblical principles. The Bible is our foundation; the Cross of Christ is our strategy; the repentance of the Church of Jesus Christ is our ultimate goal. As the Church changes its heart toward unborn children, God Himself will hear from heaven, forgive our sin, and bring healing to our land. We believe that Jesus Christ is the only answer to the abortion holocaust. It is upon our active repentance in the streets of our cities that the Gospel is visibly lived out. We become to the church, to our city, and to our nation living parables which rightly represent God's heart toward His helpless children.

There are no cheap political solutions to the holocaust presently ravaging our nation. Like slavery before it, abortion is preeminently a Gospel issue. The Cross of Christ is the only solution.

Hope that hat is tasty.

--------------------
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

Laura
General nuisance
# 10

Posted

As to the birth rate issue (an instrumental and not a principle-based argument), with which many anti-legal-abortion groups here in the US are concerned; they also cite the dropping birth rate, but what they're mostly talking about is the birthrate among whites, for the most part, because they are concerned that America will shortly be overrun by blacks, Latinos, Asians ... in other words, that America will shortly be overrun by Americans. (Too late!)

I'm not saying that that's Paddy's view, just that it's one enunciated by some "pro-life" groups here.

--------------------
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

Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888

Posted

Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Why do we need to maintain the UK population? Given that there are good arguments that the world is overpopulated (or soon will be - but that is another subject) why not make a small start in the UK - and accept more immigrants if we really do need to maintain UK population. But, if this line of argument is to be followed it's probably best to start a new thread since it isn't directly related to abortion.

Why do we need to maintain the UK population? Well if we don't increase it then by the end of this century we will be reduced to the economic strength of meagre Holland. We won't be able to afford the NHS let alone state pensions. Britain will lose its place as a world power. Many services will collapse due to lack of workers. We will be left with miles of deserted urbanland.

It's a jolly good excuse to start having sex.

As for the world is overpopulated - that argument was one of the 1960s. It's rarely used nowadays except by abortion groups desperately trying to justify abortion in countries like Italy and Germany whose population is already declining.

As for accepting more immigrants. There are several major problems:

- We currently need 1.2 million a year. We're only taking in 200,000.
- Doesn't do much good for race relations!
- Migrants tend to settle on the major cities like Birmingham, London, Manchester...but these aren't the areas with population problems. They need to settle in places like Wales. Now presuming you don't believe its right to force people to settle somewhere, we've got a slight problem!
- Also its morally wrong to steal doctors/nurses and other workers off countries that need them more. For instance, we are currently importing a lot of doctors from South Africa (1/4 of the NHS is going to retire by 2005) - but ZA needs these doctors more than we do (AIDS crisis!).

ANd I think it is directly related to abortion. If we didn't have abortion then we would have an extra 6 million people (plus more since these 6 million would have children of their own etc).

Besides if I had created a new thread I would have been labelled as a crusader.

Laura:

you point out operation save America (who seem like a ghastly organisation I haven't come across before) but I don't see where they call themselves pro-life.

quote:
I'm not saying that that's Paddy's view, just that it's one enunciated by some "pro-life" groups here.

I was talking about the birth-rate in general. I actually don't have figures for seperate asian or african birth rate figures.

Paddy

Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Pedant
Apprentice
# 3263

Posted

How awful to be like Holland!
Will we have to wear clogs and dip our chips in mayonaise?

Posts: 9 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2002 | IP: Logged

The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098

Posted

quote:
Abortion is the only option given by society to women.

What about adoption or keeping the baby?

quote:
Women who have an abortion don't do so because they see babies as evil or a problem!

Do you have any statistical evidence as to the reasons for abortion? I would have thought the main reason was that they are simply not ready - whether in terms of relationships/finance/career development etc.

quote:
Birth rate and abortions have little connection.

In a country which bans abortion I would expect there to be a clear impact on the birth rate, unless illegal abortion is available or it is easy to travel to neighbouring countries.

quote:
But remember Poland is not yet part of the European Union and it is thus very difficult to travel from one country to another.

What gives you that idea? Poland and its neighbours are developed, free countries. Travelling between them is very easy.

quote:
Errr hang on - abortion can't be done secretly within a few hours. Although for most abortions women do not have to stay overnight at a hospital, they involve a lot of planning, sorting out etc. It's also not terribly secretive - after all two doctors must allow you to have an abortion.

The only people who need know other than the women concerned and those she chooses to inform are medical staff with obligations of confidentiality. Compare with having a baby - can't exactly be kept a secret!

quote:
Abortion is a easy solution for governments. It's much cheaper to get women to terminate their pregnancies than to, say, force employees to increase maternity leave, force boyfriends to contribute to the welfare of the unborn child, fund programs giving support to women or helping to subsidise the costs of raising a child.

Paddy, do you have any political interests other than abortion?

Maternity leave rights have been signficantly increased in recent years. The CSA forces fathers to pay maintenance. Since 1997 we've had big increases in child benefit, family tax credits, chilcare subsidies etc. If women want babies there is plenty of support available.

Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002 | IP: Logged

Huia
Shipmate
# 3473

Posted

quote:
Why do we need to maintain the UK population? Well if we don't increase it then by the end of this century we will be reduced to the economic strength of meagre Holland. We won't be able to afford the NHS let alone state pensions. Britain will lose its place as a world power. Many services will collapse due to lack of workers. We will be left with miles of deserted urbanland.

It's a jolly good excuse to start having sex.
Paddy

I must admit when I first had sex I wasn't thinking of the economic and social good of the country - how thoughtless of me! [Eek!]

Huia - rather bemused at the turn this is taking.

[fixed UBB in quote]

[ 19. January 2003, 13:04: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.

Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP: Logged

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Printer-friendly view

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0

sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website