Abortion - And An Obsessive Sanctimonious Cleric

[Rog]

Again Rog - what constitutes 'trivial disabilities'?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Non - trivial disabilities - probably easier to list by type.

 

Hard to draw the line as medical science moves on but I would allow the mother – NOT the father – the option of making the call if the child was going to be quadriplegic, suffered from brittle bone disease, Progeria (that’s that awful disease that produces rapid aging starting in childhood), meybe even spina bifida in its extreme forms – that sort of thing.

 

I do know that when Clair was pregnant we were concerned in case our kid was suffering from Downs as although Clair is 10 years my Junior I was concerned in case my age might come into things and also because I had been exposed to certain materials (no details) that could have resulted in genetic damage.

 

What did nit help was that she miscarried several times before she went full term.

 

But if we had decided to terminate and some religiously motivated do-ggoder had then got involved and caused trouble the effect on us would have been terrible.

 

It’s the fact that the woman is a curate that makes it worse in my eyes. Has she no idea about the hurt that she must have caused? She should be ashamed of her actions.

 

I seem to recall having read on the Online site about some God Bothering woman councillor in the South of the Island getting her ecclesiastical knickers in a twist because the local kids didn’t attend a church service. What the hell has it got to do with her anyway? Thank goodness church attendance isn’t yet compulsory

 

To my mind the promotion of religion – ANY religion – to a person under the age of reason should be seen as child abuse as that is precisely what it is.

 

Right! Back to work – I’ve got a contract job to get out - and we all know what contracts mean ---MONEY!.

[Addie]

... that does not mean we should be forcing women to have babies they do not want

So this particular pregnancy wasn't planned?

... equally so, the fact that someone may possibly adopt said child is also not a good reason to force a woman to birth an unwanted baby.,

Again, this baby - before problems were discovered - was unwanted?

 

... conspicious in their absense where are the women on this thread, as always the men have far to much to say about an issue only very indirectly affecting them .

no not the upbringing, that has everything to do with men too of course, but abortion itself.

There are more people involved than just the mother. What about the father and most importantly, the baby itself? No wonder some men feel excluded from involvement with child care, or are they required only to sow their seed and set up standing orders?

 

There have been well publicised and tragic incidences recently of parents fighting tooth and nail to keep their children from being 'allowed to die'. These children have truly desperate health problems - far more serious than a cleft palate or "possible" downs syndrome - but these children mean absolutely everything to their parents.

 

It's impossible to have a right or wrong answer to any of this. Each and every case is highly personal and individual.

 

But survival of the fittest? I'd just hate to see vaguely Hitleresque attitudes being allowed to filter into our lives under the guise of 'care' or 'rights'.

[kite]

So this baby was unwanted?

I have no idea of the ins and outs of this particular pregnancy, but the fact remains that the lady had an abortion so I would say yes, the baby was unwanted.

I suppose it is a matter of opinion but in mine the mother is more important than the baby, being a fully formed aware person, whereas a dog has more intelligence and self than a baby. Although a woman may wish to consult the father he should not have any say in law. I cant imagine he ever would either

I would also consider a lady who did not want her baby being forced to birth it by being denied an abortion as more hitleresk and worrying than a late abortion.

 

it is up to the mother. no-one else.

[Rog]

it is up to the mother. no-one else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Spot on.

[ans]

Although a woman may wish to consult the father  he should not have any say in law. I cant imagine he ever would either

 

If there is no medical risk to the mother, the father should have rights to a say. Why should terminating a baby that carries no extra risk to a mother than a normal child be solely one parent's decision?

 

If there's a risk to the mother, than yes, I agree, it's her call.

[The Old Git]

I know it's a serious subject, but

 

I have no idea of the ins and outs of this particular pregnancy

 

ROFL

[kite]

If there is no medical risk to the mother, the father should have rights to a say. Why should terminating a baby that carries no extra risk to a mother than a normal child be solely one parent's decision?

because she is the one carrying it and giving birth to it. therefore has more right obviously.

 

As it is, the man does _not_ have a say, are you suggesting that should no longer be the case? You would advocate a change of rules so the man has to agee to a termination too? It will never ever happen Im afraid.

not least becasue as far as I know its impossible to even determine who a babys father is before its born anyway?

but mainly because its a womans body, hense her choice

[ans]

You're not even reading what I say. I withdraw from this pointless discussion.

[shamus]

Point of the thread was the interference by a priest. None of her or any other priest's damned business. I agree with Rog.

 

Regarding ans point about fathers having some say I agree. Provided no harm will be done to the mother if she goes full term AND the father is comitted to support mother and child.

 

Regarding the morality of abortion I find it wrong as it is destroying life.

But if that life to be born will have a quality of life that is one of discomfort and pain then I think abortion is acceptable but certainly should be carried out before the baby is perfectly formed.

 

I read in the Daily Mirror years ago of the upset of a nurse who assisted in a hospital abortion and the baby survived for about 15 minutes after being removed from the womb. That turned me off abortion in the main.

 

But what does make me cringe is the bloody religious do-gooders who poke their noses into these matters trying to inflict their beliefs on others, just like they do with the euthanasia debate.

 

One can be morally good without being religious and as the author of this thread has inferred, this cleric was poking her nose into something that has nothing to do with her.

[simon]

Boiled down into a Darwinian survival of the fittest then sure

 

IIRC Darwin never wrote about survival of the fittest. If fittest implies health and strength. IIRC - he wrote about survival of the most fitted (ie traits relating to environment etc) - which is an entirely different concept.

 

My understanding is that this is a common misconception.

 

Someone more knowledgeable than me can fill in the details

[Addie]

Point of the thread was the interference by a priest. None of her or any other priest's damned business. I agree with Rog.

It seems to me that Miss Jepson, the curate of St Michael's church in Chester, is as much entitled to her opinion as everyone here is entitled to theirs. Maybe more?

 

Or maybe we, none of us, is entitled to judge anyone else? What about this? Judgement

 

Do not judge thy comrade until thou hast stood in his place.

 

13.Judaism. Mishnah, Abot 2.5

[shamus]

Point of the thread was the interference by a priest. None of her or any other priest's damned business. I agree with Rog.

It seems to me that Miss Jepson, the curate of St Michael's church in Chester, is as much entitled to her opinion as everyone here is entitled to theirs. Maybe more?

 

Or maybe we, none of us, is entitled to judge anyone else? What about this? Judgement

 

Do not judge thy comrade until thou hast stood in his place.

 

13.Judaism. Mishnah, Abot 2.5

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The difference is that this woman used her religious beliefs to interfere. Opinion is one thing but actually interfering is another.

 

As rog implied she is an interfering despicable bitch.

 

And with no due respect to you, biblical quotes mean nothing.

 

Morality and logic should preside, not mumbo jumbo written by primitive people resting under a fig tree drunk out of their brains two thousand years ago.

 

The ramblings of the so called revelations of John in the New Testament are proof of that mumbo jumbo nonsense.

 

Lets keep religion out of this.

 

But like the interfering bitch I am only expressing my opinion too. Without going further like she did.

 

That is the point of the author of this thread.

[Addie]

But like the interfering bitch I am only expressing my opinion too. Without going further like she did. That is the point of the author of this thread.

Don't like women do you, vader?

 

And are you the 'author' of this topic then? Everyone reads what they read and makes their own assumptions. You have your views - I'm assuming that they're your own anyway -and we all have ours. Yours generally come across to me as aggressive, intolerant and worryingly schizophrenic in tone - but then I am female.

 

The difference is that this woman used her religious beliefs to interfere.   Opinion is one thing but actually interfering is another.

She also used her personal experiences.

 

Opinion is one thing but actually interfering is another.

We are all guilty of interference as soon as we open our virtual mouths.

 

As rog implied she is an interfering despicable bitch.

Then I suggest that the pair of you suit one another admirably.

And with no due respect to you, biblical quotes mean nothing. Morality and logic should preside, not mumbo jumbo written by primitive people resting under a fig tree drunk out of their brains two thousand years ago. The ramblings of the so called revelations of John in the New Testament are proof of that mumbo jumbo nonsense. Lets keep religion out of this.

Why? I simply quoted something. Not my religion, not my thoughts. Just a quote that might be apt.

 

Can one really "keep religion out of this" as it seems to form the very core of post one of the topic.

[shamus]

 

But like the interfering bitch I am only expressing my opinion too. Without going further like she did. That is the point of the author of this thread.

Don't like women do you, vader?

 

And are you the 'author' of this topic then? Everyone reads what they read and makes their own assumptions. You have your views - I'm assuming that they're your own anyway -and we all have ours. Yours generally come across to me as aggressive, intolerant and worryingly schizophrenic in tone - but then I am female.

 

The difference is that this woman used her religious beliefs to interfere.   Opinion is one thing but actually interfering is another.

She also used her personal experiences.

 

Opinion is one thing but actually interfering is another.

We are all guilty of interference as soon as we open our virtual mouths.

 

As rog implied she is an interfering despicable bitch.

Then I suggest that the pair of you suit one another admirably.

And with no due respect to you, biblical quotes mean nothing. Morality and logic should preside, not mumbo jumbo written by primitive people resting under a fig tree drunk out of their brains two thousand years ago. The ramblings of the so called revelations of John in the New Testament are proof of that mumbo jumbo nonsense. Lets keep religion out of this.

Why? I simply quoted something. Not my religion, not my thoughts. Just a quote that might be apt.

 

Can one really "keep religion out of this" as it seems to form the very core of post one of the topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I give an honest sincere post in response to a very emotive and serious subject and then read the retaliation and insinuations of vader crap.

 

A typical Manx response from someone Manx which reminds me of crabs in the bucket syndrome.

 

I am glad that the likes of you have no say whatsoever in the actual determination in law and medical practise regarding abortion.

 

And the sooner our society divorces itself from all religion the better. Morality is logical and needs no icon to bow and scrape to.

[Mission]

Heh, he's back.