Sunday, May 11, 2008
Cross-bench support
In an unprecendented move, a joint letter has been sent to all MP’s from the party leaders of the four largest NI parties opposing the Lib Dems proposal to extend abortion to Northern Ireland.
Fair Deal @ 11:21 AM
George.
Why not tell us which solution you think is viable and we’ll take the conversation from there?
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 06:51 PMOK, OK: not strictly on topic, but that’s never stopped us before.
Once upon a time the Papacy did its level best to ban human dissection. So, in 1514 Leonardo was arraigned before a Vatican tribunal, accused of necromancy, and his note-books and drawings condemned to be destroyed. That was at a time, too, when monasteries and churches used human remains, sorry—“holy relics”, for interior decoration. So no double-standards there.
Pius VI did a similar and unnecessary painting-into-a-corner job with Humanae Vitae.
Now the theologians are in a helter-skelter rush to keep up with bioscientific advances which could not be foreseen in the 1960s. The Vatican posture is becoming progressively more uncomfortable: either it adapts or it becomes irrelevant to and excluded from the debate.
Be prepared, then, for a subtle but significant shift. In the fullness of time, the faithful might expect exegesis of Leviticus 17.11 (the Catholic scientific community seems to be in full mutter-mode already). For, of course, it is at about 20 days the embryo first shows signs of a heart and blood.
Hey presto! And with a single bound ...
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 07:25 PMMR
3. Why none of these fanatics are prepared to explain what is wrong with the RCOG’s policy document, which might start to address the problem, rather than obsessing over the theology.
Here is the biological fact I have never been able to get past: if my mother had snuffed out the zygote or the foetus while in the womb, I would not be here. From the moment of conception is the point where you can pluck out a bundle of cells point to and say it’s me. Harm it, and poof! I’m not here anymore.
I am a practicing Catholic have never felt that I have the right to legislate for others spiritual well being. But that is most definitely corporeal.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 07:45 PMTafkabo,
I think consensus is possible on the point that abortion is something that should be a last resort.
Put simply, the issue here is abortion and the objective is to reduce the need for it.Reducing a woman’s freedom of choice does not reduce the numbers of abortions so if the issue really is abortion and the welfare of the foetus, for me the real question for the here and now is how do you reduce the need for abortions.
The Netherlands has one of the most liberal abortion policies in the world but still has one of the lowest abortion rates, even with all the Irish who now travel there as well as Britain.
But the big issue is illegal abortions, of which there are about 20 million a year. I don’t hear any answers from the pro-life lobby as to how this should be addressed.
I would prefer the debate to move towards reducing that figure and, from a local perspective, looking how to reduce the numbers of Irish women travelling and helping the many vulnerable women (and children) in need of support and protection.
These are things that Irish society and society as a whole should be looking to address.
I would like to see the Irish State taking a more pro-active role in this and finally to address the hypocrisy of exporting our “moral guilt” but I feel we will be waiting a little while longer for that one.
Ann Lovett’s death shook one Irish generation and crystallised into reality so much of what everyone knew was wrong in Irish society.
I just hope it doesn’t take another incident like that to bring us one step further down the road to reason on this issue.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 07:50 PMGeorge, I agree that we should be doing all we can to reduce the demand for abortion, it is an traumatic experience for any woman who goes through it.
I would suggest better sex education and access to contraception for any female who asks for it, but as we have seen, places like The Brook clinic which are trying to keep women informed and in control meet the same type of small minded opposition as abortion does.
By the way, rather than think my postion is absolutiost, I think my position is eminently fair and sensible.
Abortion ought to be a matter of conscience, if you don’t agree with it, then you ought to have the right to not have an abortion.
Similarly, if you think it’s acceptable then you vote with your conscience.
the probelm at the moment is that people are being asked to act in a way that suits someone ele’s conscicence, not their own.Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 08:34 PM“Abortion ought to be a matter of conscience, if you don’t agree with it, then you ought to have the right to not have an abortion.”
And slavery? And capital punishment? If your conscience decrees that you have absolute rights over other human beings in these matters should you be allowed to exercise that conscience as you see fit?
A simple fact which you seem to be utterly incapable of grasping in your rush to heap the charge of “misogyny” on anyone who disagrees with you (which is like screaming “racist!” at someone when you can’t defeat their argument, just for the record I’m fairly certain everyone here loves dearly the very many women friends, lovers, wives and family members in their lives, cut out your nonsense and you might stand a chance of convincing somebody) is that their are two human bodies involved, not just the woman’s.
If we’re not human at conception will you kindly tell me at what point we become human, 22 weeks? Seven months? Eight months three weeks and six days after conception? Once the child’s head has exited the birth canal? When it’s tucked up in its cradle? University graduation?
I know for a fact that I was a human when I was in my mother’s womb, as were my children when they were within theirs, I’m fairly certain that despite your unwillingness to grant reciprocal humanity to others you TAFKABO were also human when you were in your mother’s womb, so tell me when did your right to a life begin?
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 02:17 AMTAFKABO
There is an irony in you feeling that you know my likely rections better than I would, since it mirrors the same notion that a group of men are better able to decide what is best for a woman’s body, regardless of her feelings on the issue.
First, I don’t know your likely reactions better than you would. I do, however, doubt that you would not feel angry and excluded and that an injustice had been done to you if your wife or partner aborted your child against your wishes.
Second – as I said, and you chose to ignore – it’s not simply an issue of “what is best for a woman’s body”. It’s an issue about a pregnancy – created by both a man and a woman – that will ordinarily develop into a new person with his or her own body, and for which both the man and the woman will be responsible.
I still say that the issue of misogyny is a valid one, since ultimately people are saying that a foetus takes precedence over a grown woman’s wishes for her own body.
It’s not simply an issue of a woman’s wishes “for her own body”: that is a deliberate misrepresentation of the issue.
Also, in my experience, women are more likely to be anti-abortion than men. Are those women misogynists?
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 07:56 AMMalcolm ,it was Paul vi who issued humanae vitae,and I believe it is being borne out in today’s society.Contraception leading to a greater level of promiscuity and infidelity,which leads to a breakdown in family values.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:13 PMDanny
The absence of contraception would mean that the Earth could not sustain all human life: we simply could not produce enough food and resources to feed the huge population.
In the past, when there was no medical contraception, neither were there the medical advances which prevent so many people dying at birth, or dying young.
If you are content to accept medical interventions which increase the population by preventing deaths, then how can you reject medical interventions which prevent the World’s population from exploding out of control?
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:59 PMHarry, Because I don’t share your view that a bunch of congregated cells has preeminence over a woman’s right to decide what is best for her own body doesn’t mean I’m incapable of grasping anything, it means I don’t agree with you.
Do you always assume people who disagree with you “just don’t get it” the way you do in your elevated enlightened state?As for misogyny, I’ve explained why I think this is a valid charge, if you want to disagree with my reasons, go ahead.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:15 PM“a woman’s right to decide what is best for her own body”
Once more - this is a misrepresentation of the issue.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:24 PMWillowfield,There is enough resourses (to paraphrase Gandhi)to sustain everyones need ,not everyones greed,as long as it takes enough soya beans to feed a family pf 4 for a year to produce enough bio fuel to fill a small family hatchback ,-then yes resources will be used up to satisfy ouur cultures demand for more,I would also point out that there is a thing called natural family planning,which does not expose women to the increased heath risks that come with using chemical contraception.
I want to say that I was just trying to clarify a point to Malcolm in relation to Humanae Vitae,that the then pope,felt would lead to a breakdown in family values.In the UK in spite of all the contraception abortion rates are still on the increase,
Since 1967 there have been millions of children killed in abortions,who is going to pay the bills as the population gets older ,with more pensioners and fewer tax payers,the disregard for the sanctity of human life,may well come into play in another area - euthanasia.Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 03:25 PMDanny O’Connor @ 01:13 PM:
My apologies: “Paul” not “Pius”. Pius VI was the one with whom de Sade’s Justine had all the fun, right? Can’t think what made my fingers’ Freudian slip there.
As for the rest of recent tosh, sorry: you’ve lost me. I looked everywhere for those “contraception abortion rates”. They don’t show up on any data-base I can access.
Then again, I see you advocate an eternal and cumulative increase in population, that an infinite number of young people can be enslaved to the service of an ever-aging and ever-growing older cohort. Unless something else intervenes (see below, for Malthus).
Good, too, to know that “natural family planning”—rather than those horrible, unnecessary and (as you suggest) dangerous contraceptives—is effective in an age of HIV and AIDs. I thought that view had been discredited, except among the really loopy and Thabo Mbeke. That and similar mythology did marvels for the incidence of child-rape across southern Africa.
Now, “family values”. George W Bush believes in those so much that he and his mates cut funding and punished programs to teach birth-control and safe sex. In the developing world that might just imply starvation and/or AIDs is a “good thing”. Now, what did I intend to say about a “Malthusian crisis”? Oh yes, that’s a far better solution to the world’s woes than taking practical steps now, don’t you agree? As for us brighter, more enlightened folks, by restoring “Kinder, Küche, Kirche”, it does marvels for male job-opportunities. Neat!
Oh, and I soooo liked your notion that we’ll all pass up our transportation (and, doubtless, much else) to underwrite the fecundity of others. That’s a very fair appreciation of the selfless philanthropy I see all around me, and can applaud every time I see a prelate in rags.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 04:52 PM
