Turn on thread page Beta

Abortion watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Should we change the current abortion limit of 24 weeks?
    Abortion should be illegal under all circumstances!
    16
    5.08%
    Abortion should be illegal, except in certain cases such as rape, a threat to the mother's life and etc.
    65
    20.63%
    It should be reduced to 12 weeks
    44
    13.97%
    It should be reduced to 20 weeks
    48
    15.24%
    The current 24 week limit is fine!
    91
    28.89%
    Abortion should be legal should up to 28 weeks!
    20
    6.35%
    Abortion should be legal throughout the entire pregnancy!
    27
    8.57%
    Not sure!
    4
    1.27%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just because meat may or may not be murder that does not mean we should adopt institutionalised vegitarianism - it is a very similar point.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    And Zoe, Jenny does have angst - she admitted herself that she hates pro-lifers and to accuse Yawn of being "low" [when really it is not her whose making the personal remarks] strikes me as double-standards. That's merely my observation. Take it or leave it.
    Silly me! What was I thinking, clearly I do have angst because TML says so! :rolleyes: Thinking that most pro-lifers are the scum of the earth hardly equates to having angst, you must have led a pretty sheltered life. As for Yawn's "personal remarks" it is one thing to insult somebody's character - I couldn't really give a flying **** what someone like Yawn thinks of my personality, in fact it rather pleases me when the old Bible bashers start trying to save my soul - but to take a very painful personal experience and try and use it as ammunition against them really is low.

    Just to make it clear to anyone who was wondering, I don't regret having the abortion. No doubt if the law were changed so that a sixteen year old child were forced to keep the unwanted offspring of a drug rape that ruined her life then Yawn and her bunch of Christian goons could all jump up and down and clap their hands with glee at the good they were doing the world, but as it happens I rather think it was in the best interests of absolutely everyone involved that I terminated the pregnancy. So no, I do not have angst about my past experiences and nor are they the reason I am pro-choice - clearly I must have been pro-choice before the incident or I would never have terminated the pregnancy in the first place! :rolleyes: I am a very liberal person with very liberal, progressive views. This means that while in my own life I would never have an abortion ever again, I think the option should be available to all other women. I am pro-choice because I am not brainwashed by religious or "moral" dogma, not because I feel guilty.

    Afterthought: Say you were right Yawn. Say I regretted my abortion. Say every woman regretted their abortion. Why would that change anything? I thought this was all to do with the baby's right to life? Guilt wouldn't be a reason to change the law.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Silly me! What was I thinking, clearly I do have angst because TML says so!
    No, you're right, stressed out would be more appropriate, judging by your tone. Merely an observation. There was a decent debate before you came.
    Thinking that most pro-lifers are the scum of the earth hardly equates to having angst
    You think they're the "scum of the earth"? You really are an unpleasant person, Jenny.

    And Jenny, there is no Christian conspiracy against you; neither is there anything wrong with being a Christian with regards to human judgement and nor does the pro-life position mean you need to be remotely religious.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    nor does the pro-life position mean you need to be remotely religious.
    No, it's just far more probable that you are.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    No, it's just far more probable that you are.
    Well, I know many atheists that support the pro-life position and many theists who support the pro-choice position.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    Well, I know many atheists that support the pro-life position and many theists who support the pro-choice position.
    I don't doubt it, but it's certainly evident that the church is the spine of the pro-life movement in the USA - probably the only place in the western world where abortion rights are actually still a current affair.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    That's not a new idea. Someone already suggested it on this thread.

    But as it was pointed out, the belief that abortion kills human life means that belief can't be compromised by not speaking out against it.
    that only works if you believe all human life is some sort of sacred issue.

    frankly, it isn't.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't doubt it
    Well, just have a look on this forum. Phawkins is pro-choice. Solinvinctus is pro-life. Theist and atheist respectively.
    but it's certainly evident that the church is the spine of the pro-life movement in the USA - probably the only place in the western world where abortion rights are actually still a current affair.
    That's true. It's still largely irrelevant considering that you don't need to be a theist to hold a pro-life stance. It's an ethical issue of subjective morals, not religion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    Well, just have a look on this forum. Phawkins is pro-choice. Solinvinctus is pro-life. Theist and atheist respectively.

    That's true. It's still largely irrelevant considering that you don't need to be a theist to hold a pro-life stance. It's an ethical issue of subjective morals, not religion.
    Then we're in agreement. :p:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Well, yes, I suppose we are
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But do we agree that although JennyBean's pro-choice viewpoint is aided by the fact that she has no religious affiliation it does not necessarily mean that she believes all religious people must be pro-choice? Because that appears to be what she means, even if it was said in an angry/emotional tone...and that was what I was really batting for with my original post and i'll feel like i've wasted time posting here if we've just shared 7 posts between us saying the same thing. :p:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    But do we agree that although JennyBean's pro-choice viewpoint is aided by the fact that she has no religious affiliation does not necessarily mean that she believes all religious people must be pro-choice? Because that appears to be what she means, even if it was said in an angry/emotional tone...and that was what I was really batting for with my original post and i'll feel like i've wasted time posting here if we've just shared 7 posts between us saying the same thing.
    I'd say that religion has little need to be discussed. That's all I'm saying.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    No, you're right, stressed out would be more appropriate, judging by your tone. Merely an observation. There was a decent debate before you came.

    You think they're the "scum of the earth"? You really are an unpleasant person, Jenny.

    And Jenny, there is no Christian conspiracy against you; neither is there anything wrong with being a Christian with regards to human judgement and nor does the pro-life position mean you need to be remotely religious.
    You don't read my posts very carefully do you?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    i believe she called me vile the other day.

    i was loving it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    You don't read my posts very carefully do you?
    Jenny, I analyse them with a great big magnifying glass and write my findings in my nice little journal for safe-keeping.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    I'd say that religion has little need to be discussed. That's all I'm saying.
    Even when it is an influencing factor for many pro-lifers because religion acts as a moral guidebook? I'd suggest that in a world free from religion abortion arguments would look entirely different. Without having to read this thread, i'm positive religious arguments have appeared repeatedly(as they do in every abortion debate).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Even when it is an influencing factor for many pro-lifers because religion acts as a moral guidebook?
    The moral teachings of religion may resonate with an individual, but that doesn't make them any less valid. Debate the morals; not the religion.
    I'd suggest that in a world free from religion abortion arguments would look entirely different.
    A world free from religion would be so impossible to imagine, for our ancient societies relied on it.
    Without having to read this thread, i'm positive religious arguments have appeared repeatedly(as they do in every abortion debate).
    No they haven't, Henry.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    Jenny, I analyse them with a great big magnifying glass and write my findings in my nice little journal for safe-keeping.
    careful. some people around here do actually do that.

    then, a long time down the line they crawl back out of the cellar to make their one and only post of the year to destroy your soul.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    The moral teachings of religion may resonate with an individual, but that doesn't make them any less valid. Debate the morals; not the religion.
    That statement assumes the moral teachings of religion have been freely sought and accepted, but we both know that the moral teachings of religion are regularly pressed upon the children of the religious. Some of those children are now teenagers, some of them are now adults - some of them are here. I believe JennyBean called it brainwashing, but I wouldn't go that far. In my opinion, that fundametally makes any such morals less valid. Having said that, I'm in position to judge who repeats religious morals merely because those morals were a basic part of their upbringing and who repeats them because they honestly passionately believe them.
    (Original post by TML)
    A world free from religion would be so impossible to imagine, for our ancient societies relied on it.
    Then you agree. If such a situation is so impossible to imagine, it seems only logical this is because it would be so different.
    (Original post by TML)
    No they haven't, Henry.
    I would go and find some, but you would argue they are merely individual moral viewpoints and I would argue they are individual moral viewpoints based on collective religious ones. That wouldn't be very productive, would it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    "Abortion should be illegal, except in certain cases such as rape, a threat to the mother's life and etc."

    For the record, that's my view, and I've explained it numerous times; so I'm not going to take part any further.
    I really don't understand that view. If you think abortion should be illegal (presumably because you value the life of the unborn) then why should rape have anything to do with it?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.