Abortion - And An Obsessive Sanctimonious Cleric

[shamus]

I mean no disrespect to you Mission and you are a moderator, but to be honest I feel your scant remarks do not do justice to this thread or any of the posters including addie who I respectfully disagree with.

 

This really is an emotive, serious subject and should be handled by the mods a bit more seriously.

 

And my family, BTW has been involved with abortion.

[Ripsaw]

Morality and logic should preside

 

With all due respect, morality is linked to responsibility which infers that if two consenting adults partake in an activity from which life can be created, then those people should stand by their actions and live with whatever the outcome of those actions.

 

/back on thread...

 

Abortion is a very serious matter, a subject that is bound to draw subtle and extreme views from all quarters of the opiniated public. It certainaly is not a subject for off the cuff and shallow insults or cheap point scoring from anybody.

 

Just remember when raising points that abortion isn't a minor operation, it is the ending of a life which didn't ask to be created. Despite currently being permitted until week 24, the feotus is alive from the point of conception and that life can be sustained from 22 to 23 weeks.

 

Mothers and fathers often go through severe mental tourture when making the decision and more often than not, the pyscological effects upon some never go away. There are plenty of instances where last minute, during and especially afterwards, relief is replaced by remorse and regret. Once complete there is no going back!

 

The right to termination is a big responsibility. Even in the case of a known disability it is a decision that I can not imagine trying to make and it annoys me to hear or read (wherever the source) views based on little more than a passing knowledge of the situation. Patients should be offered counciling and support before and after the operation. It must never become a 'cosmetic' decision as so many other operations have become in recent years.

 

It also annoys me the way that the subject is trivialised in various forms of the media as that only serves to desensetise it even more, evidenced by the rising numbers of unwanted pregnacies and the assumption that if it isn't wanted it can be sorted. Maybe some of the 'teen' mags should run 8 page spreads describing in actual details the processes and mental anguish involved. I doubt they ever will though. For anyone in any doubt about the process, Google has plenty of factual and biased information to pick from if one can be bothered to look, even my eyes were opened by the results of a simple Image search!

[Mission]

Maybe some of the 'teen' mags should run 8 page spreads describing in actual details the processes and mental anguish involved.

 

Agreed, this should happen.

 

 

I doubt they ever will though

 

I hope you're wrong on this one.

[Declan]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Disagree wholeheartedly, Vader.

 

I'm an atheist, but I don't see how anyone can be expected to keep their religious convictions separate from how they view the world. Everybody makes judgements about their own lives based on moral convictions and for Christians these convictions are underpinned by their faith.

 

But, I would suggest, the reality goes further. I, for example, abhor racism, welcomed the ban on fox hunting, and oppose the death penalty, on moral grounds. You wouldn't deny me this right, I presume, so why should the same courtesy be extended to people whose morality is influenced by their religion?

 

Now, did the priest in this case abuse her right to hold personal belief, and a conscience in this case and overstep the mark and become "an interferring bitch?"

 

Let me ask you if you saw something you considered to be morally wrong, legally ambiguous and resulted in the destruction of a human life, would you stand by? Or would you interfere?

 

From what I've read, and the news reports when the vicar first brought the case there was enough grey area about whether a cleft palete constituted a "serious" enough condition to warrant a late termination, for questions to be asked about this decision. Not so much as a witchhunt directed at those involved in this case, but to provide guidence for the future.

[Rog]

Religion does not hold the monopoly on what represents good morality. If anything good morality has simply been captured in religion.

 

To me the really disturbing thing about this case was that rather than learn of what had taken place and address the subject as an anonymous case in pursuing her fixation, this curate decided that she should take it on herself to interfere in what was obviously a terribly difficult time for the couple who had taken the decision that they had – and incidentally, there is scant information as to the severity of the deformity that the foetus had, I doubt if it was a ‘simple’ cleft palette alone – and involve the police.

 

Having made an investigation the Police determined that in their opinion there was no case to be brought the woman then continued to look to cause trouble and took the matter to the courts where once again it was thrown out.

 

What right does she or anyone have to dictate to a woman that she should not terminate a pregnancy? It is her body, it is her life that will be affected, it must be her decision alone though if she chooses to include the thoughts of her partner in making that decision then so much the better but he should have no decision in the matter in law.

 

Pro choice people simply promote the concept that a woman should have the choice. They don’t seek to try to persuade pregnant women who want to deliver a child that they should not do so. In essence they do not interfere. They have their beliefs which they do not try to impose on others.

 

Anti-abortionists on the other hand do interfere and do their best to take the choice from another person on the basis of their beliefs. They DO try to and often succeed in imposing their beliefs onto others and that is plain WRONG. And to use religion as the basis of their actions is simply despicable.

 

Bt now notwithstanding anyone’s opinions on the rights or wrongs of abortion per se what strikes me is the utter hypocrisy let alone the insensitivity shown by this Jessop woman who purports to be a Christian and yet her actions in this matter and in particular the distress that she has brought to the couple at the centre of it are about as far removed from the true spirit of Christianity as she could get if she had tried.

 

She should be thoroughly ashamed of herself.

 

But Declan raises an interesting point when he writes –“ (I) abhor racism, welcomed the ban on fox hunting, and oppose the death penalty, on moral grounds. You wouldn't deny me this right, I presume, so why should the same courtesy be extended to people whose morality is influenced by their religion?”

 

I suggest the answer may be found here. Let’s take the hypothetical case of someone who had been executed, and on the evidence of the parents of the victim and with their approval.

 

Should you, as someone with no connection with then family, therefore go to law citing the parents and the lawyers and the judge as murderers? And if the police having investigated have found no crime had been committed should you then go directly to law yourself, in spite of seeing the anguish that you had and were continuing to cause top the parents of the executed person? Or would it not be both better and far more humane to instead become active or maybe m ore active in the anti-death penalty movement. Is there not a place for pity for the parents in this whole sorry matter and should a professing Christian cleric not be the first to recognise this.

 

I still maintain she should be thoroughly ashamed of herself and would even go further. She should seriously consider her future as a cleric of the Christian Church. She is in the wrong job.

[kite]

good post rog

The right to termination is a big responsibility. Even in the case of a known disability it is a decision that I can not imagine trying to make and it annoys me to hear or read (wherever the source) views based on little more than a passing knowledge of the situation. Patients should be offered counciling and support before and after the operation. It must never become a 'cosmetic' decision as so many other operations have become in recent years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It annoys me to hear people judging others knowledge of situations with no idea whatsoever of their experiences. how do you know what sort of aquantaince anyone on here has with abortion?

and how do you know anyone has ever made the decision to have a termination as a "cosmetic" decision? utter rubbish no doubt gleaned from a tabloid headline.

are you reffering to caeserians with your 'as so many other operations have become'? this is again a matter of choice and none of anyone elses business.

[Ripsaw]

Kite, Thanks for screwing up the meaning of that particular paragraph. It just goes to illustrate a total lack of comprehenson in what I was saying within the complete post.

 

Be proud man

 

Oh and by the way, your assumptions are wrong, but hey.

 

 

Edited to remove needless sarcasm.

[Stavros]

Edited to remove needless sarcasm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't see the comment and I'm guessing that it was edited by a Mod but I don't think that Ripsaw does needless sarcasm.

 

 

 

Stav.

[ans]

I didn't see the comment and I'm guessing that it was edited by a Mod but I don't think that Ripsaw does needless sarcasm.

 

Sarcasm is never needless. I think Ripsaw just changed his mind.

[Skig]

Will the police now investigate how this busy-body found out, and publicly disclosed information that she had no right to know in the first place, and procecute her?

[ans]

Haven't the couple remained anonymous?

[P.K.]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suspect, but I do not know, that she was trying to stand up for the rights of the unborn children of the future. Their right to life. Probably her religion had something to do with it but then I have always thought that you do not have to go to church to be a good christian. For me it is more about moral values and how you live your life. Not something you need to be religious for - as Declan was alluding to.

 

I personally think that the disabilities this unborn child seemed to have were insufficient cause for what took place. However I don't think I know enough about the personal circumstances of the parents to condemn or otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reason I thought this was because it occurred to me that they might already have a child that was disabled. As the father of a disabled child I can appreciate how the thought of more heartache could be just too much.

 

-

[Ripsaw]

Stavro: I didn't see the comment and I'm guessing that it was edited by a Mod but I don't think that Ripsaw does needless sarcasm.

Ans: Sarcasm is never needless. I think Ripsaw just changed his mind.

 

I shorted my post before I clicked (mainly gushing of frustration at being a misundersood soul). The tag was reflective of this.

 

(Sarcasm is wasted if the target isn't "up to speed")

[Ean]

There is no easy answer and until someone comes up with a good answer people should not judge the actions of people who are forced to decide.

 

There's not much i agree with you on Paul but that sums up what i feel about this.

[Carter]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Disagree wholeheartedly, Vader.

 

I'm an atheist, but I don't see how anyone can be expected to keep their religious convictions separate from how they view the world. Everybody makes judgements about their own lives based on moral convictions and for Christians these convictions are underpinned by their faith.

 

But, I would suggest, the reality goes further. I, for example, abhor racism, welcomed the ban on fox hunting, and oppose the death penalty, on moral grounds. You wouldn't deny me this right, I presume, so why should the same courtesy be extended to people whose morality is influenced by their religion?

 

Now, did the priest in this case abuse her right to hold personal belief, and a conscience in this case and overstep the mark and become "an interferring bitch?"

 

Let me ask you if you saw something you considered to be morally wrong, legally ambiguous and resulted in the destruction of a human life, would you stand by? Or would you interfere?

 

From what I've read, and the news reports when the vicar first brought the case there was enough grey area about whether a cleft palete constituted a "serious" enough condition to warrant a late termination, for questions to be asked about this decision. Not so much as a witchhunt directed at those involved in this case, but to provide guidence for the future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well put Declan exactly what was needed.

 

Oh but one criticism....i think you are supposed to say 'Shamus'