Nadine Dorries abortion proposals

[Vonhelmet]

It can be for a number of reasons, i'm no medical expert but unforseen occurrences befall us all. Search for yourself and come to your conclusions as to why. We are imperfect.

So if a woman's body can decide when a foetus/zygote/whatever is non-viable, why can't a person's mind make a comparable decision?

 

[spudbynight]

Not necessarily, because it was ultimately the state that dismantled slavery, not religion, though they did have a considerable part in it.

The American Politician Stephen Douglas used the following points to argue in support of slavery :

1. It is a personal choice
2. It is a religious matter
3. They are not people

It is funny how all of those arguments are used in support of Abortion.

 

[spudbynight]

I did come across this site

http://www.plagal.org/

Which is something to show that is isn't just "religious fundamentalists" who are against abortion.

 

[RDM]

My wife and I have been through miscarriage and as far as we are concerned we lost a child. We do believe that every miscarriage is the death of a child.

As I have pointed out on this thread already when we start trying to define things like what a human being is we get into the realms of opinion. I suspect ours will differ.

But surely that is the crux of the matter? Are we killing a baby or are we terminating a pregnancy? To answer that you need to know if what you are getting rid of is a human being or just a potential human being.

You are making assumptions here. If you can prove what Mrs Dorrie's intentions are then I am more than happy to discuss.

Surely we can examine the issue at hand rather than trying to make assumptions of the beliefs held by the individuals concerned. Yes Mrs Dorries is a Christian, does that direct every decision she makes? Is she incapable of reaching a conclusion on her own?

http://www1.salvationarmy.org.uk/uk...80257340004530DE/$file/War Cry 2 Jun 2007.pdf

A couple of select quotes:

Currently there are about 600 abortions a day in the UK. I’d like to reduce that number by at least half. The public is not interested in banning abortion.
Those who hold out for a complete ban have not changed the law – they have not saved a single life.
To me, saving some lives is better than saving no lives at all. I hope pro-lifers will come to share my view that some progress is better than no progress.
...
‘My faith tells me who I am. It tells me why I am here. It tells me who is with me while I am pursuing my goals. I sometimes think if I didn’t have my faith,
who would I be? How would I live my life?
‘My faith constantly gives me my reference point. It keeps me grounded. I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. There is nothing I did that got me here; it is what God did. There is nothing amazing or special about me, I am just a conduit for God to use.’

Now, please tell me that you can say with good faith that this amendment isn't about reducing the ability of women to have abortions?

Why does someone have to be to blame at all?

If it is a perfectly natural process that has evolved and there is nothing at all sacred or divine about it then no one needs to be blamed. However if that is the case then we are back to finding a definition for what being a human being is, because a newly conceived feotus isn't one.

Then your point is meaningless

I agree, any point in this debate involving god is meaningless.

I certainly don't think it is an easy topic. I don't deny that a woman has a right to choose to become pregnant.

Though in the cases of rape you deny them that choice.

I also think that the unborn child has the right to life. You have two parties both with valid rights - I simply believe that the right to life comes out on top.

And I believe that the woman's right to control her own body comes out on top.

 

[RDM]

With that sort of attitude we would still have slavery.

How? Slavery is very much the epitome of forcing your worldview on another person.

I would also be very careful of taking the moral high ground on the issue of slavery when you are arguing from a position of faith. Do blacks still have only half a soul?

 

[spudbynight]

But surely that is the crux of the matter? Are we killing a baby or are we terminating a pregnancy? To answer that you need to know if what you are getting rid of is a human being or just a potential human being.

We are killing a baby - happy now?

http://www1.salvationarmy.org.uk/uk...80257340004530DE/$file/War Cry 2 Jun 2007.pdf

A couple of select quotes:

Now, please tell me that you can say with good faith that this amendment isn't about reducing the ability of women to have abortions?

I can hand on heart say that I don't believe it is about reducing the ability of women to have abortions. Mrs Dorries does hope that by allowing women exposure to counselling that doesn't have a question mark over its impartiality abortion numbers will drop. That isn't the same thing.

If it is a perfectly natural process that has evolved and there is nothing at all sacred or divine about it then no one needs to be blamed. However if that is the case then we are back to finding a definition for what being a human being is, because a newly conceived feotus isn't one.

When a child is lost it is traumatic at any stage but as when someone dies in adulthood there isn't fault attached. We will have to agree to disagree on our views on what constitutes a human being.

I agree, any point in this debate involving god is meaningless.

When people have a closed mind to something then it is best to approach an argument using a point of reference they are comfortable with.

Though in the cases of rape you deny them that choice.



And I believe that the woman's right to control her own body comes out on top.

We are going around in circles here a little bit. You put the right of a woman to not go through childbirth above the right of an unborn child to life. I don't agree with you. I thought we had established all of that?

 

[markweatherill]

I think that any moral discussion on the rights or wrongs of terminating the life of a human embryo ought to consider what happens in IVF treatments. (I wonder, without access to figures, how the amount of artificially created embryos that are routinely destroyed compares with the number of terminations of unwanted pregnancies)

 

[spudbynight]

How? Slavery is very much the epitome of forcing your worldview on another person.

I would also be very careful of taking the moral high ground on the issue of slavery when you are arguing from a position of faith. Do blacks still have only half a soul?

Did you read my earlier post on slavery? Can you not see the correlation between a slave owner saying "Don't agree with slaves then don't have any" and someone saying "Don't agree with abortion then don't have one"

As regards my taking the high ground from a position of faith - well I am not the one who keeps bringing faith into the discussion. At no point have I introduced it and in fact I have made a very deliberate attempt to discuss this point without it. I am coming to this from my own personal standpoint on morality.

I am intrigued at your point as well regarding blacks only having half a soul. I don't recall having said that - can you job my memory?

 

[spudbynight]

I think that any moral discussion on the rights or wrongs of terminating the life of a human embryo ought to consider what happens in IVF treatments. (I wonder, without access to figures, how the amount of artificially created embryos that are routinely destroyed compares with the number of terminations of unwanted pregnancies)

Well as an example on that the Catholic Church is strongly opposed to IVF.

In fact Ruth Kelly when in government made great pains to ensure she was not available to vote on any topics pertaining to human embryo research.

 

[spudbynight]

I do have work I need to do so I will try and come back to all this later.

 

[Danthus]

Well as an example on that the Catholic Church is strongly opposed to IVF.

Does it put a Priest out of a job?

 

[LordSplodge]

Such an offensive term to the creator of life.

If your god can't take a bit of criticism then I feel sorry for him.

Conception != Sentience. Can you, or does you Bible, define when the embryo becomes sentient? Because at that point it is a life and before it is just a collection of cells on automatic function no matter how cute or baby-like it may look.

 

[Vonhelmet]

If your god can't take a bit of criticism then I feel sorry for him.

Conception != Sentience. Can you, or does you Bible, define when the embryo becomes sentient? Because at that point it is a life and before it is just a collection of cells on automatic function no matter how cute or baby-like it may look.

The Bible says very little on any scientific matters, and the sooner people stop trying to make it comment on things outside its remit, the better.

 

[LordSplodge]

The Bible says very little on any scientific matters, and the sooner people stop trying to make it comment on things outside its remit, the better.

I know but Kedge seems to think it provides all the answers so i was trying to see if he could provide an answer based on my question.

 

[kedge]

If your God can't take a bit of criticism then I feel sorry for Him.

A human trying to judge the almighty Creator of life, just lol .

it is just a collection of cells on automatic function no matter how cute or baby-like it may look.

“The human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one cell age,” reported Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark, a celebrated molecular biologist. He concluded: “There can no longer be any doubt that each human being is totally unique from the very beginning of his or her life at fertilization.”

And as noted by others there is a big difference between spontaneous death and deliberate homicide.

 

[LordSplodge]

A human trying to judge the almighty Creator of life, just lol .

Why not? Is your god so insecure he cannot have a human judging him?

“The human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one cell age,” reported Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark, a celebrated molecular biologist. He concluded: “There can no longer be any doubt that each human being is totally unique from the very beginning of his or her life at fertilization.”

And as noted by others there is a big difference between spontaneous death and deliberate homicide.

Cells are programmed to divide or do certain functions from conception. That is an answer but not to the question I asked. When do mere cells become a sentient human?

 

[kedge]

Kedge seems to think it provides all the answers.

The Hoy Scriptures (Bible) provides the most logical explanation as to how we got to be here on earth, and, why the human race has been and is so afflicted with many great woes and suffering and pain.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Why not? Is your god so insecure he cannot have a human judging him?

If he was that bothered by what you had to say, he'd just go all Job 38-41 on your ass.

 

[Mr Jack]

“The human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one cell age,” reported Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark, a celebrated molecular biologist. He concluded: “There can no longer be any doubt that each human being is totally unique from the very beginning of his or her life at fertilization.”

So identical twins are only one person. Gotcha.

 

[kedge]

Why not? Is your god so insecure he cannot have a human judging him?.

This is what Satan said in many guises and look what happened to him and what will happen to this defeated opposer.

Cells are programmed to divide or do certain functions from conception. That is an answer but not to the question I asked. When do mere cells become a sentient human?

Go ask Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark