for new amendment see:

http://catholiclawyersblog.wordpress.com/

Well, it’s actually the speaker who chooses which ammendments to put before the house.

What about this latest deveopment?

We’ve all seen the results of professional abortions. Dead Babies. Horrific.

I am a living breathing fully formed and functioning human being, I may be made up of cells but I am not just a blob of jelly (no sniggering at the back)
A fertilised egg has no innate right to remain in someone’s body if that person doesn’t wish it so.
And to suggest we leave religion out of the equation is being dishonest since it is religion which motivates the overwhelming majority of those opposed to abortion and it’s not the atheists who are here claiming people will burn in hell.
(yeah that’s right, those pontificating about the sanctity of life are getting erections at the thoughts of people being tortured for an eternity, how very noble)
Speaking from a strictly objective perspective we can see that the majority of conceptions do not reach full term, indeed most of them don’t even reach the uterus so it is a little hysterical to suggest that a fertilised egg be granted the same rights as a human being.
Only the religious argument finds worth in a fertilsed egg that hasn’t reached the uterus, nature certainly doesn’t work in any which which suggest this object is a precious commodity.

When does the right to life begin?

Isn’t that the very point we’re arguing here?
ultimately it will be the law which decides. I’m confident that the right decision shall be made.
As for your example of treating people as subhumans, the flaw in your reasoning is that the argument cuts both ways, by refusing a woman the right to decide what happens to her body we set an equaly dangerous precendent and we can extrapolate all sorts of eventualities from this situation as well.

I am a living breathing fully formed and functioning human being, I may be made up of cells but I am not just a blob of jelly (no sniggering at the back)
A fertilised egg has no innate right to remain in someone’s body if that person doesn’t wish it so.
And to suggest we leave religion out of the equation is being dishonest since it is religion which motivates the overwhelming majority of those opposed to abortion and it’s not the atheists who are here claiming people will burn in hell.
(yeah that’s right, those pontificating about the sanctity of life are getting erections at the thoughts of people being tortured for an eternity, how very noble)
Speaking from a strictly objective perspective we can see that the majority of conceptions do not reach full term, indeed most of them don’t even reach the uterus so it is a little hysterical to suggest that a fertilised egg be granted the same rights as a human being.
Only the religious argument finds worth in a fertilsed egg that hasn’t reached the uterus, nature certainly doesn’t work in any which which suggest this object is a precious commodity.

When does the right to life begin?

Isn’t that the very point we’re arguing here?
ultimately it will be the law which decides. I’m confident that the right decision shall be made.
As for your example of treating people as subhumans, the flaw in your reasoning is that the argument cuts both ways, by refusing a woman the right to decide what happens to her body we set an equaly dangerous precendent and we can extrapolate all sorts of eventualities from this situation as well.

A bunch of congregated cells is not a human being.

What are you other than your cells which are, let’s face it, congregated? From what derives your right to life if we can prove that you are made entirely of cells?

At what point did you become entitled to life? Are you entitled to it now? Will you be entitled to it when you are old and sick and a burden to the state? Some say no.

Our right to life is in fact nothing more than an agreement not to kill each other. And that breaks down often as we know. To kill in huge numbers it is always necessary to portray the victims as less than properly human even when they are clearly human.

Sub-human was a category introduced by killers to justify mass murder. And a the people who stood by and let it happen may have fancied themselves as enlightened. They produced Goethe and Beethoven after all.

It is part of our nature to not let the deaths of strangers impinge on our minds too much. We tend to be more upset about a parking ticket in the afternoon than the news of a famine on the radio that morning.

The point is that our belief in the right to life is not that strong. We make mental exceptions for categories but not so much for individuals.

The unborn child is an individual not a category. It is entitled to its life which it alone owns.

And forget religion. Let’s assume there is nothing to that. What we know is that the odds of life emerging at all were slim and can be accumulated into millions to one against any individual making it into the extraordinary reality we inhabit. I don’t see where the right to kill can ever come from. How can we deprive another being of the experience of life and the right to make of it what they will.

Because if we have the right to kill where does it stop? I think we know that it doesn’t

By the same token, look at an aegg which has just recieved a sperm and tell me that’s a potential human being.
of course it is but so xhat, it’s still just an egg.

So a woman ‘suffers severe stress and anguish because of prolonged uncertainty’ because she doesn’t know if she will ‘legally’ be allowed to kill the baby inside her. Big deal! Keep away from semen and you’ll have no agonising decisions to make.

Aye and it’s comments like that which say so much about the latent atred of women so much on display here.
Why not just be honest and call them fucking filthy whores, you know you want to.

Most of us know somebody who has gone for an abortion. Enough said.

Enough said indeed.

In the example that the Irish Times cited, the Polish woman suffered a marked deterioration of her physical health due to her pregnancy and a pre-existing congenital condition. Irish law already permits abortion where there is a risk to the health of the mother.

Pandering to the EU and to the British government under the conditions of the GFA resulted in Ireland incorporating the redundant ECHR into Irish law, with the Irish courts now having a duty to interpret Irish law and the Constitution in a manner that is compatible with a document that compromises the sovereignty of the Irish people.

However, if people are going to do it anway why make them fly over to Britain to do it? Really no point in keeping it illegal.

The three Irish women will succeed because Irish abortion law is in a worse state than the invalid Polish law”

The case is one of many which shows that the debate and indeed the decision is not the dear old zero sum game.

Yvette Doll

As far as the child is concerned it is. But abortionists, and some mothers, have no concern for the child….

Tsk, tsk.

Would you like to make a stab at the percentage of women who choose to kill their child for reasons of ‘inconvenience’? 10%,25%,95%?

Irrelevant.

I doubt if the figure is very high and I wouldn’t care if it was 100%.

Choice means just that, the right to choose.
no one knows better than a woman what is the right decision for her body.

So, you tell me when that egg becomes a human being?
Once again the cold hard facts are at odds with the emotional hyperbole.