INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Inerfering old bezums! (abortion thread)

Enter here to explore ethical issues and discuss the meaning and source of morality.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Inerfering old bezums! (abortion thread)

#1 Post by Alan C. » October 21st, 2007, 5:48 pm

It beggars belief! that these old men in frocks think they can interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.

British women treat abortion as the easy option, claims angry Archbishop. WTF has he got to be angry about?
You would think they would have other things to worry about.

C of E child abuse was ignored for decades.

Catholic politicians who defend abortion should not expect to remain full church members, Scotland's most senior Roman Catholic has warned.
You'd think they would want to move away from all things sexual, given the trouble it causes them.
Suspended Vatican cleric threatens to expose gays.
The hypocrisy is nauseating :sick:
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Noggin
Posts: 497
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:48 am

#2 Post by Noggin » October 22nd, 2007, 11:30 pm

I agree, Alan.

I think Rowan Williams raises an interesting ethical point. His perspective seems to be that abortion is actually a terrible thing but that it is, in some circumstances, the lesser of the evils.

I have some sympathy with this when it comes to very late abortions (mainly because late abortions are traumatic for the woman having one) but I strongly disagree with it in cases of early abortion, which I feel are ethically neutral.

To me, his views amount to an argument for improving sex education and contraceptive advice as well as making early abortion on demand a reality.

I'm glad to see the C of E are now getting some of the blame for abusing children. Not before time.
It is the still and silent sea that drowns a man. -- Old Norse Proverb

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

#3 Post by Alan C. » October 23rd, 2007, 11:46 am

A PROMINENT Australian academic has criticised claims by the Archbishop of Canterbury that abortion has become an increasingly easy option for pregnant women.
Archbishop 'wrong on abortion claims'
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Chineapple punk
Posts: 195
Joined: July 24th, 2007, 10:01 pm

#4 Post by Chineapple punk » October 24th, 2007, 5:45 pm

I'm really getting pissed off with pro-life/religious groups banging on about the "normalisation" of abortion. This is a "straw man" argument and, as a woman, I am completely insulted by the Arch Bishops comments. Neither I, nor any woman I know, regards abortion as an easy option or an alternative form of birth control. I have thankfully never had to make such a decision but two of my friends have. It was both difficult and heart wrenching for them and still effects them to this day.
Give quiche a chance.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

#5 Post by Nick » October 24th, 2007, 5:57 pm

You were lucky to miss Thought For The Day, this morning. An idiot from the Evangelical Alliance was quoting the Old Testament to justify his anti-abortion stance. I had complained to the BBC within 2 minutes of him finishing, and sent him an email sharing with him my considered view very shortly afterwards. A fat lot of good it will do me, though.
:angry:

Chineapple punk
Posts: 195
Joined: July 24th, 2007, 10:01 pm

#6 Post by Chineapple punk » October 24th, 2007, 6:48 pm

Too right! That would have been a smash the radio to bits moment for me.
Give quiche a chance.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

#7 Post by Alan C. » October 24th, 2007, 9:08 pm

I don't know why it is, but abortion seems to be high on the agenda again.
There are 4 articles on the subject today on the NSS website.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

tehabwa
Posts: 29
Joined: October 20th, 2007, 12:30 am

#8 Post by tehabwa » October 25th, 2007, 9:05 pm

Yes, this is quite the hot topic here in the states. I continually hear and see the idea that "women use abortion as birth control" (casually, that is), or even the idea that women are all "La, la-la. Guess I'll get myself knocked up (American for pregnant) so I can have a nice abortion, just because that's so FUN!"

I've never known ANY woman to have that attitude; yet we're told that's what women do all the time.

What really burns me is that it's the very people who SAY they're against abortion that prevent policies that would reduce the number of abortions: accurate sex education and easy availability of birth control.

Without people's realizing it, the "Just say no to sex" version of sex education quietly took over sex education here -- "abstinence-based" as they call it.

I'm all for emphasizing the down-sides to sex, and encouraging young -- especially females -- to think seriously about whether they really want to have sex right now, and learning how to not cave in to pressure. (A lot of young girls are having sex ONLY to keep their boyfriends, even though they really don't want to, yet.)

But I HATE when schools lie to kids. On top of just being wrong, kids are still spreading really absurd "facts" about avoiding pregnancey among themselves.

And people get very upset when there's any move made to make it possible for sexually active young people to get birth control.

The desire to prevent unmarried people from engaging in "evil, sinful, disgusting naughtiness" and the desire to control women's bodies are more important to many than preventing the unwanted pregnancies that are WHY there are abortions.

Yet they go on about "killing babies" -- as though they really cared about that.

:angry:

If we could just take the argument one step back, to talking about preventing unwanted pregnancy (which is a horrible state to be in, whatever one decides to do about it), there'd be a lot fewer abortions.

There are huge hunks of the country that have de facto "bans" on abortion, simply because women can't find anyone near them to perform them.

I mean, if you were a doctor, and knew you or your family would be harassed or even killed, would you perform abortions?

Being the utter coward I am, I doubt I would.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

#9 Post by Nick » October 25th, 2007, 9:54 pm

I'd agree with just about every word you write, tehabwa.

As a man, I consider myself less qualified and less entitled to an opinion on this subject, but I am uncomfortable with the base 'right to choose, control over our bodies' argument, when it is seemingly divorced from any corresponding drive to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

A couple of other comments: I'm fed up with the view that "girls become pregnant to get a council house" type of argument. IMO it is much more likely that they have such a bleak view of the future that they don't particularly care what happens, and once pregnant, for the first time in their lives, they have a purpose (OK I generalise) and they are so poor anyway, another mouth to feed won't make any difference.

And the reason it has popped up again is because it is 40 years since David Steel's Bill. 39 years? Nope. Doesn't count.

gregory
Died May 2009 R.I.P
Posts: 184
Joined: July 28th, 2007, 10:34 am

#10 Post by gregory » October 25th, 2007, 10:10 pm

It is possible that some girls and younger women take risks with sex with the idea that abortion is to some extent available I don't blame them I may have thought that myself if I was still young.

Hopefully the accessibility of abortions in the early part of the pregnany which will be improved I believe along with the more difficult accessibility of abortion during tha later stage of pregnancy. Will be a good idea. Abstinence is the safest way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy people can have fun in ways other than penetrative sex.

If young women have babies to get council houses good for them. During that era of high unemployment at least its one way of entering a creative grown-up stage.

That is not to say that all young women have children just to get council housing.

Someone I know suggested that young women should be rewarded for not having children with money - its one way of looking at it.
There'll be blue birds over
The white cliffs of Dover

Chineapple punk
Posts: 195
Joined: July 24th, 2007, 10:01 pm

#11 Post by Chineapple punk » October 26th, 2007, 12:35 pm

Is it possible that some girls and younger women take risks with sex with the idea that abortion is to some extent available ?

I honestly don't think so but I could be wrong. A more pertinent question I think would be, Is it possible that some girls AND boys take risks with sex with the idea that abortion is available?

Obviously only women can get pregnant and ultimately any final decision over this would lie with them but I think more has to be done to target boys as well as girls in sex education.

I think there is still a hangover in society that anything to do with babies and pregnancy is exclusively filed into the "women’s issues" category, and it is crucial that we get away from this idea.

For a start, I don't think it's fair to men. I know that if I became pregnant, as well a being equally responsible for my state, both my partner and I would have equal discussion on how having a baby was going to effect us, how we wanted to raise that child, etc. I wouldn’t want him frozen out of any part of the process. I realise that life isn't perfect and you could be in the position of not having a partner when going through this for any number of reasons, but where possible it would be desirable to have both parties involved.

It is for this reason that focus on education should be directed at young boys, perhaps more so than girls, because at the end of the day most girls know that unwanted pregnancy is the consequence of unprotected sex for them, and they can’t escape the physical side of that. Effective education should highlight to young boys that although they will not sustain any physical consequences (unless they are unfortunate enough to catch a STD) of unprotected sex, it is not a get out of jail free card. They still have a moral duty to be responsible for any child that is born and to discuss options with regards to pregnancy with the girl, although as stated before, the final decision on the physical issues will always lie with her.

I must emphasize however that I don't think the UK is teaming with irresponsible young girls who see getting pregnant as a way to obtaining a luxurious council flat, or indeed to screw the social out of thousands of pounds of Child Benefit, Income Support, etc, and therefore make their millions! But if that is the bullshit the media are peddling, why don't they talk about the responsibilities of all these absent young fathers and the burden that they have seemingly placed on society?
Give quiche a chance.

Thomas
Posts: 459
Joined: July 21st, 2007, 3:54 pm

#12 Post by Thomas » October 27th, 2007, 12:41 pm

Alan C. wrote:I don't know why it is, but abortion seems to be high on the agenda again.
Is it because it's the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Act to make abortion legal today?

Thanks to Alan for circulating the article by Polly Toynbee in yesterday's media scan. In case anyone missed it:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnis ... 03,00.html

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

#13 Post by Alan C. » October 28th, 2007, 11:18 am

Why we are fighting to lower abortion limit
By Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor
I can't stand that bloody guy :angry:
An excellent comment on his article, I couldn't better it so I didn't leave a comment.
So where did Christ condemn abortion? Or
indeed contraception or homosexuality?. The
answer is nowhere. In his day the fetus wasn't
even considered human for the first 40 days so
he could easily have chosen to make a point
about needing to change the law to protect the
supposed sanctity of the unborn, but he didn't.
Curious, isn't it, considering he must have known
what a fuss the modern Catholic church would
make about the issue. Christ was, though
completely unambiguous about wealth. He had
no significant wealth of his own and repeatedly
told his followers to be Christians they needed to
sell all they had and give it to the poor. At best it
is extremely difficult to say what Christ would
have said about abortion if asked. But it is a
doddle to understand what he meant on the
issue of money. So the question is, why is the
Church so exercised about something Christ
didn't talk about and so little interested in
something he clearly made the core of his
teachings? When the Cardinal and the Catholic
church confirm that they have given away all
their possessions and are currently lobbying for
a law to say that all wealth must be held in
common then I might listen to what they have to
say on other matters. Christians who so
desperately want to ban (other people) from
having a legal abortion and, should think hard about whether they are choosing to follow their own self interested prejudicies rather than Christ's priorities.
Posted by Anne on October 28, 2007 2:34 AM
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

tehabwa
Posts: 29
Joined: October 20th, 2007, 12:30 am

#14 Post by tehabwa » October 28th, 2007, 5:34 pm

So the question is, why is the
Church so exercised about something Christ
didn't talk about and so little interested in
something he clearly made the core of his
teachings?
:happyclappy:

Spot friggin' on!

I am USING this arg from now on.

I didn't know that about babies not being considered human then until 40 days -- what, exactly, does that mean? Anyone know?

User avatar
gcb01
Posts: 564
Joined: July 8th, 2007, 1:50 pm

#15 Post by gcb01 » October 28th, 2007, 6:38 pm

tehabwa wrote:I didn't know that about babies not being considered human then until 40 days -- what, exactly, does that mean? Anyone know?
I think it is that they thought the soul didn’t enter the foetus until after 40 days (60 for females). How they worked this out I have no idea.

gregory wrote:It is possible that some girls and younger women take risks with sex with the idea that abortion is to some extent available I don't blame them I may have thought that myself if I was still young.
I hesitate to comment as a 52 year old but I think that when they don’t use contraception they are simply taking a chance and taking the moment.

Most of us have been in that situation and most have got away with it - wipes beads of sweat from brow.
Regards

Campbell

squiffy
Posts: 42
Joined: September 26th, 2007, 12:22 pm

#16 Post by squiffy » October 29th, 2007, 10:19 am

They aren't all wearing frocks...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858, ... 09,00.html

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2007-10-22.6.1


It is a little known fact that it is virtually impossible to get an abortion in Northern Ireland. It is unlikely that an abortion can be carried out on the NHS in GB for a woman from Northern Ireland as

1) She must be registered with a GP in England, Scotland or Wales for a period of some weeks (14? can't remember exactly) prior to seeking a termination

and

2) It still involves time away from home, a certain amount of expenditure airfare, boat fare etc. so it's not really feasible for the majority of people and especially not underage girls, who are underage in Northern Ireland until they are seventeen.

At least the interfering, wombless old drag biddies you have to listen to don't have any real legislative power. :angry:

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9274
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

#17 Post by Maria Mac » October 29th, 2007, 11:28 am

Shocking, Squiffy. I recall in the late 70s/early 80s reading about a young girl from Sandy Row dying after not being able to get a legal abortion. I can't remember what happened i.e. whether she tried to do it herself or went to a backstreet abortionist.

Do people still do illegal abortions?

squiffy
Posts: 42
Joined: September 26th, 2007, 12:22 pm

#18 Post by squiffy » October 29th, 2007, 2:54 pm

I haven't heard of it lately, but I'm sure there are still such practitioners. Only Brook and FPA provide unbiased advice and they aren't as high profile or as visible as all the pro-life or anti-choice as the likes of SPUC etc.

Ted Harvey
Posts: 172
Joined: September 10th, 2007, 4:41 pm

#19 Post by Ted Harvey » October 30th, 2007, 3:32 pm

I see from the Guardian that we also have interfering-not-so-old-Christian-medical-‘experts’, who have trouble being frank and fully honest to Parliamentary select committees they are called before tgo 'advise' on the topic of abortion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/ ... omeaffairs

So typical of a certain type of Christian humbug and hypocrisy.

User avatar
gcb01
Posts: 564
Joined: July 8th, 2007, 1:50 pm

#20 Post by gcb01 » October 30th, 2007, 4:53 pm

Ted Harvey wrote:I see from the Guardian that we also have interfering-not-so-old-Christian-medical-‘experts’, who have trouble being frank and fully honest to Parliamentary select committees they are called before tgo 'advise' on the topic of abortion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/ ... omeaffairs

So typical of a certain type of Christian humbug and hypocrisy.
Ted, don't beat around the bush, they lied, as do the "now you see it, now you don't" creationism to ID brigade. So much for getting their morals from their religion.
Regards

Campbell

Post Reply