Nadine Dorries abortion proposals

kedge said:
Bosh. I have no authority, and as far as i am aware or from what i can tell, christians/believers in God also believe life begins at conception?.
Click to expand...

From what I can tell most don't know or care, a few believe on thing a couple believe another and there are more groups than I have fingers with every idea in between.
 
kedge said:
I'm no expert on scripture but believe the sabbath was a covenant between God and his people. I don't observe the sabbath in this day and age.


It's not for me to judge others, so i can only speak for myself. If i was living back then and was worshiping God and i disobeyed his commands, and, knowing full well the consequences (as this one spoken of in the covenant) then i would accept the punishment i suppose.
Click to expand...

So you have chosen to ignore what you believe was a covenant between God and his people of which you are one? How do you explain that? It's written clear as day in the book that you some times source in arguments as an authority, how on earth do you ignore a section of it and then source it as an authority?!
 
He's a JW, which is a heretical offshoot of Christianity, though I don't doubt Jews and Muslims would call me a heretic as well, so go figure.

He appears to be saying that the Sabbath was only for the original tribes of Israel, and that as he is not one of them, he doesn't need to observe the Sabbath. I'm not sure whether that lines up with prevailing JW thinking, though.

EDIT: It appears JWs do not observe or recognise a Sabbath.
 
kedge said:
But it is biologically alive.
Click to expand...

So's a cancer cell. So's an insect, for that matter.

Biologically alive is irrelevant.

If it is true that we don't know when full humanness begins, this is an excellent reason not to kill the unborn, since we may be killing a human entity who has a full right to life?.
Click to expand...

So we have an unborn who's status is unclear and a woman who we're entirely sure is human and you want to prioritise it over her. How does that follow?
 
kedge said:
But it is biologically alive. Is it true abortion-rights advocates do not know when life begins?. As mentioned at christianlife .net
Click to expand...

Biologically alive it may be but then so if your sperm. What about the thousands of them that die (even if you don't masturbate)? What about all those eggs that women lose naturally during each monthly cycle? What about the bacteria you kill when cleaning your house?

This is why we have guidelines about how late an abortion can be performed (and I think the current max limit is a little high) and that is why the issue of sentience is important. That is not an issue for religion but for science.

It is a two-edged sword. If no one knows when full humanness is attained, then we cannot prevent a Satan-worshipping neighbor, who believes that full humanness begins at the age of two, from sacrificing his one-and-a-half-year-old son to the unholy one. After all, who knows when life begins?
Click to expand...

What? That has nothing to do with abortion. That is murder and is, of course, wrong. You win the award for worst counter-argument ever.
 
hurfdurf said:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! That explains an awful lot, so he is part of the lot that enjoyed the first 2 books, and decided to follow some cult leader who wrote some fan fiction based on it?
Click to expand...

nah that's Mormons if i remember my sects correctly.
 
hurfdurf said:
Christians follow the bible as a whole do they not? Jews just think the first book is important and not the second.
Click to expand...

yes but certain parts of the first book only apply to Jews/Israelites and others were redacted in the new testament.

hence why Christians don't follow all of Leviticus.
 
Tefal said:
nah that's Mormons if i remember my sects correctly.
Click to expand...

I think they both do according to the wiki, but I was remembering this quote

Muslims don’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Think of it like a movie. The Torah is the first one, and the New Testament is the sequel, then the Qu’ran comes out, and it reckons the last one never happened, there’s still Jesus, but he’s not the main character any more, and the messiah hasn’t shown up yet.

Jews like the first movie, but ignored the sequels, Christians think you need to watch the first two, but the third one doesn’t count, Muslims think the third one was the best, and Mormons liked the second one so much they started writing fanfiction that doesn’t fit with ANY of the series canon.
Click to expand...

JW seem to be like a very strict fan club of the first 2 movies with a hierarchy taking advantage of lower members fandom via poorly written fan fiction its members aren't allowed to criticise.
 
Tefal said:
yes but certain parts of the first book only apply to Jews/Israelites and others were redacted in the new testament.

hence why Christians don't follow all of Leviticus.
Click to expand...

Broadly speaking, yes.

With JWs it's less the fan fiction thing, and more like when you get your English instructions for your Chinese toaster, and it appears to have been translated by a Belgian with no knowledge of either. Well... That's the offensive, cynical way of putting it.
 
My local MP owns

Thank you for contacting me about the amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill tabled by Nadine Dorries MP, calling for compulsory independent counselling for women contemplating an abortion.



These amendments have been selected by the Speaker for debate at the Report Stage of the Bill tomorrow. I can assure you that I will vote against them.



You ask about my personal position on this issue, and I can confirm I am pro-choice. But irrespective of this, I have serious misgivings about this proposal for a number of reasons.



First, I am disappointed that these amendments waste critical parliamentary time which should be spent debating, and voting on, crucial amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill. The Bill has been hugely controversial, and various parts of it were recommitted after the Government realised the extent of the opposition. The report stage is the last opportunity in the Commons to discuss important amendments to address some of the key areas of objection and concern before it moves to the Lords.


Second, the objective of this amendment – to provide ‘independent advice and counselling’ for women seeking an abortion - appears to be something with which no one could disagree. But – I believe – these proposals have been dishonestly presented and conceal hidden dangers.



No evidence has been given to suggest there is a problem with the impartiality of the advice currently given. As the Chair of the Royal Society of GPs has said, these proposals attempt to fix a system which is not broken. Women already receive impartial information and advice about abortion; this is part of the current obligations on abortion services under a tight regulatory system. As with any medical procedure, fully informed consent is required so clinicians must inform the woman of the potential physical and psychological risks. Additionally, doctors must be registered, and comply with, the General Medical Council guidance which requires doctors "to give patients the information they want or need about… the potential benefits, risks and burdens, and the likelihood of success, for each option”. Unlike any other medical procedure, a woman seeking an abortion needs the agreement of two doctors.



I think the reason for this absence is because this amendment is politically motivated. It is not really about a woman’s emotional or physical health, but about the strongly held belief that abortions are wrong and must be stopped.



The amendment could significantly disrupt the current process which has developed in Britain over 40 years, and introduce new risks. I understand that currently many women self-refer into abortion services, avoiding delays caused by appointment waits and anxieties about confidentiality; and that this has helped to ensure that 80% of terminations are now carried out before 10 weeks gestation. While it is of course important that anyone considering an abortion should have access to counselling which is readily available, free of charge and from a variety of sources, I have considerable reservations about making it mandatory. My feeling is that this change would force a delay in the process – increasing the risk of later-stage abortions.



One of my fundamental objections is the required intervention of someone who would not recommend abortion, which could complicate the woman’s decision on what is best for her and her family with the ideological views of others, which simply should not come into it. Reports on Newsnight last week said that the largest and leading organisation claiming to offer independent advice, Care Confidential, had been using a training manual which claimed that ‘abortion is wickedness’.



I am deeply troubled that organisations which are ideologically opposed to abortion could formally become involved in counselling women on their pregnancy options – advice which could be inaccurate and misleading. I am also concerned about where this may leave the counselling given by the clinics which provide terminations, as this is necessary – legally and ethically – for a women to give informed consent to their treatment.



Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me again about this or any other matter.



Yours sincerely, *local MP
Click to expand...
 
I think it's important to note it's a she not a he, in that one of the biggest problems with the debate is it's largely a white older male crowd making decisions on what women can do in terms of having domain over their own bodies
 
Well it's hard to tell when you remove their name.

Also I'm not sure what an Mp's race has to do with anything :confused:
 
Tefal said:
Well it's hard to tell when you remove their name.

Also I'm not sure what an Mp's race has to do with anything :confused:
Click to expand...

One of the fundamental problems of politics is it is, by and large, run by old white rich men, massively disproportionately so to the population.
 
Nadine Dorries is speaking now in the House of Commons, talk about woe is me!

All she is talking about so far is media barons, union funding, fundamental Christianity, Labour and Friends of Israel and Islam.
 
She isn't doing very well at all to be honest. Her protestations of being pro-choice seem at odds with the interview she gave to the Salvation Army.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom