tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post5229415877522973295..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: Highly billed London pro-abortion rally draws small group of ‘usual suspects’Peter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-45091292979739587162013-06-28T01:45:35.000-07:002013-06-28T01:45:35.000-07:00I decided to eve isk sale log in to twitter to fol...I decided to <a href="http://www.safeeveisk.com/" rel="nofollow">eve isk sale</a> log in to twitter to follow events as they unfolded. First we had a few tweets from prospective attendees about how excited they were to be going, then posted photos of protestors carrying placards, then further tweets <a href="http://www.riftgold.net/" rel="nofollow">Rift Plat</a> who was speaking. dveeeeeeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08412063047955417993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-43859998085196923402011-07-23T22:02:30.459-07:002011-07-23T22:02:30.459-07:00Sarah Willis,
I am sorry, I called you Sarah Tille...Sarah Willis,<br />I am sorry, I called you Sarah Tilley by mistake.Raghunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-43476680483896473912011-07-23T21:59:26.856-07:002011-07-23T21:59:26.856-07:00Wow - I am very impressed. You have drawn quite a ...Wow - I am very impressed. You have drawn quite a crowd on your blog, Peter! Unfortunately most of them appear to be pro-abortion, but still it is good to see there are some female posters who are opposed to abortion and see it for what it is - exploitation and abuse of the vulnerable child. LR and Sarah Tilley, I could not agree with you both more - well said. You have both made some very good arguments which no-one can answer. Pregnancy is not a "punishment" for those who do not wish it. It is a natural consequence of having sex, as LR points out. Calling it punishment is an awful thing to say - it is one of the most beautiful things in nature. Treating it as a punishment to be endured is not right. Pregnancy is also known to give protection against many reproductive diseases and malignancies in the future - this is well-known. So women should see it as a plus, not a minus.<br /><br />RaghuRaghunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-26880038143804322372011-07-13T01:07:51.636-07:002011-07-13T01:07:51.636-07:00Absolutely LR. At the moment I'm CHOOSING to u...Absolutely LR. At the moment I'm CHOOSING to use a contraceptive implant, because of the medication I use for my migraines I have a higher chance of falling pregnant using this form of contraception than other women, my alternative would be to use condoms which would give me a better chance of not getting pregnant or to abstain altogether.<br /><br />I've weighed up the consequences of getting pregnant, and chosen to take a risk because I don't want to use condoms or abstain. I know I might get pregnant, and if I do I will have a child and I will take responsibility for that child- it won't be a punishment, it will be the results of my choice.<br /><br />If I felt getting pregnant would be an utter disaster in my life at the moment I would more likely use condoms and to be on the safe side would use them AS WELL as the implant. And if I still got pregnant, again would view it as a consequence of my CHOICE.<br /><br />When I was a 17 year old whose life would have been absolutely ruined by a pregnancy I abstained altogether. It's about making choices.<br /><br />I know that not everyone makes the same choices as me and that's okay and I've made bad choices in my life too and have been fortunate enough to have been supported when I have. I don't for one minute think that if a 17 year old girl makes a bad choice and ends up pregnant we should all just walk away and leave her to it as some kind of punishment, however, she should be helped to handle the consequences of that choice, not helped to abrogate them.sarah willisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-8243881033104841632011-07-12T14:43:14.119-07:002011-07-12T14:43:14.119-07:00I cross-posted with Sarah Willis who has made some...I cross-posted with Sarah Willis who has made some excellent points re "punishment" - the gambling thing is a good analogy. Practically all of our life choices are gambles. Every time we take a decision, we have to accept that it could turn out "good" (i.e. the way we want it) or it could go the other way and turn sour or "bad" (i.e. the way we deffo DON'T want it - which, ironically enough, may well turn out eventually to have been the better consequence).<br /><br />So all of our life-choices are ultimately about risk. We have to weigh the pros and cons and decide whether the risk is WORTH taking or not. The only way we can ever predict outcome with a 100% accuracy in ANY situation (e.g. choosing a life partner, choosing jobs, choosing a career, etc. etc.) is by abstaining - that way we won't ever be disappointed, but neither will we ever be fulfilled. Which is NOT a good thing!<br /><br />Contrary to what other posters have implied, I deffo do NOT endorse abstention in any area of life, because a life without risk is a life not worth living.<br /><br />I've taken many risks in my life, and continue to do - some have had good consequences, while others have had rotten outcomes. I don't view the former as "rewards" and the latter as "punishment" - both are valuable life lessons. One learns from them what one can repeat with impunity (pun unintended!), and what one should avoid in future.<br /><br />One's philosophy should be to calculate the risk and take it only IF one deems it negligible, and IF one is prepared to live with the consequences - demanding "safety nets" such as termination is abrogating responsibility.<br /><br />LRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-83501884554621860872011-07-12T14:23:53.925-07:002011-07-12T14:23:53.925-07:00Liz M,
>> As for your opinion that woman ar...Liz M,<br /><br />>> As for your opinion that woman are merely human petri-dishes<br /><br />I was referring to surrogates - but you knew that. <br /><br />The petri-dish comment was specifically in response to the comment you had made earlier about fetuses being a "part" of the mother's body. I merely showed that your premise was false.<br /><br />Again, you knew that.<br /><br />Still, feel free to distort what I actually wrote, if that's the only way you can bolster your own arguments.<br /><br />>> sadly that really shows quite how little you value women.<br /><br />Yes, I must hate women, what with being a woman myself! That's really funny ;-)<br /><br />I could say it really shows how little you value vulnerable babies (fetuses are just small babies really), and accuse you just as much for having little regard for human life....<br /><br />>> If you wish to ignore the inconsistencies in my argument<br /><br />Errrmmm.... I thought I was *pointing* out the inconsistencies in your argument. Btw, good of you to acknowledge that there are inconsistencies in your argument!<br /><br />>> by... attributing opinions to me that I didn't actually express - please feel free. <br /><br />Pots and kettles spring to mind - *you* were attributing opinions to me that I do not hold. <br /><br />>> You also said that the only way you can guarantee not getting pregnant is by not having sex. You can't pick and choose which women you apply that to<br /><br />I didn't - I specifically indicated that it applied to *all* women, regardless of marital status (it was you who implied that marriage confers special rights re sex).<br /><br />>> Actually, lesbianism is the other way for a woman to avoid pregnancy. <br /><br />Wrong - lesbians can go ahead and have penetrative sex with a man, OR have Artificial insemination with donor sperm. Sexuality plays no part in avoiding a pregnancy. It's the sex act (penetrative intercourse) that counts, not sexuality. <br /><br />>> You forgot that one. <br /><br />Not at all - see above.<br /><br />>> Why should women be punished for the failure of their contraception<br /><br />It's not "punishment", it's the phsyiological consequence of our own actions - unless someone put a gun to their heads and forced them to have sex, any ensuing pregnancy can scarcely be viewed as "punishment".<br /><br />It's like saying, "Why should I be punished for eating something that causes me to break out in a rash 3 times out of 50" - in short, I knew the *possibility* was there, however remote, so I should accept the consequences. Being a risk-taker myself, I would probably go ahead and eat and take the risk - but I wouldn't whine about it later if I had to pay the price. Nor would I demand that someone else sort out the situation.<br /><br />With rights come responsibilities.<br /><br />One cannot demand endless rights while relinquishing all responsibility.<br /><br />LR<br /><br />PS: I seem to be hogging the blog - so will take myself off and try to avoid posting again. May I, however, urge posters to please READ - slowly and carefully - before actually jumping to erroneous conclusions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-52020532093509857312011-07-12T14:00:41.205-07:002011-07-12T14:00:41.205-07:00"The idea that a woman should go through the ..."The idea that a woman should go through the physical and emotional trauma of taking a pregnancy to full term against her will is, in my opinion, highly misogynistic. Why should women be punished for the failure of their contraception, if they are trying to be responsible and avoid bringing unwanted life into the world ? " (Liz M)<br /><br />Taking responsibility for your actions is not a punishment. That's such an irresponsible attitude. When a COUPLE (ie a man AND a woman- lets remove the mysoginy rubbish they are both responsible here) CHOOSE to have sex using contraception they KNOW there is a 1% chance they will get pregnant. Therefore, if they get pregnant the reason a life has been created is not because of a failure of something outwith their control, but because they took a calculated risk and it didn't go in their favour- there are then consequences to this.....this isn't a punishment.<br /><br />If it's a punishment, do you believe that people with gambling debts are being "punished" because their horse "failed" to win, and that it's not their fault, or do you think they are dealing with the consequences of their actions of CHOOSING to gamble more than they could afford?<br /><br />Life is full of choices and decisions and all of these decisions and choices come with potential consequences. The potential consequence of having sex is that you could have a baby- that's not mysoginy or punishment, it's biology.<br /><br />Also Liz M You still haven't answered my question about why you claim to be pro choice yet are against these pro choice proposals that are designed to give women more accurate and independent information to make empowered choices. I do really understand (although I disagree with) the pro choice argument, but I don't understand how you can be pro-choice and anti-information? Please help me because I'd like to understand you better ;o)sarah willisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-20731014760714418702011-07-12T13:38:47.695-07:002011-07-12T13:38:47.695-07:00> Actually, it IS good and sound debating.
Dis...> Actually, it IS good and sound debating. <br />Dismissing somebody else's argument, simply because you do not agree with it or because it shows the flaws in your argument is not good and sound debating. <br /><br /><br />> The only SURE-fire way to AVOID a pregnancy is > by avoiding sex. <br />Actually, lesbianism is the other way for a woman to avoid pregnancy. You forgot that one. <br /><br /><br />> Liz M set up a strawman argument and then <br />> resorted to drawing ludicrous conclusions <br />> (that I was advocating abstinence for married > women!!) <br /><br />No I didn't. I know full well that (for many reasons) my husband and I are not in a position to have a family at this point in time, therefore I use contraception as I do not want an unplanned pregnancy. I believe that it is highly irresponsible to bring a child into the world if you cannot provide that child with a half decent quality of life. <br /><br />You said (quite accurately) that no form of contraception is 100% reliable. You also said that the only way you can guarantee not getting pregnant is by not having sex. You can't pick and choose which women you apply that to. <br /><br />The idea that a woman should go through the physical and emotional trauma of taking a pregnancy to full term against her will is, in my opinion, highly misogynistic. Why should women be punished for the failure of their contraception, if they are trying to be responsible and avoid bringing unwanted life into the world ? (Let alone any potential emotional damage that does to the child or the extra financial burden on the state). <br /><br />As for your opinion that woman are merely human petri-dishes; sadly that really shows quite how little you value women.<br /><br />If you wish to ignore the inconsistencies in my argument by ignoring or discarding my comment, or attributing opinions to me that I didn't actually express - please feel free. <br /><br />Liz M<br /><br /><br /><br />Liz MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-62739944551952655032011-07-12T13:10:42.141-07:002011-07-12T13:10:42.141-07:00Fern Winter,
Although your q. was addressed to th...Fern Winter,<br /><br />Although your q. was addressed to the author of the blog, I'd like to answer if I may. I'm not quite sure what your point is, re Chloe and Rose. <br /><br />>> So how would you have saved baby Chloe from baby Rose?<br /><br />Unfortunately medical science has not progressed to the degree where it is possible to "save" one twin from the other. The phenomenon you describe is well-known, and occurs in a minority of cases - one fetus basically acts like a parasite, sucking nutrition from the other, to the detriment of its companion fetus. <br /><br />Your friend's unfortunate experience has no bearing on the ethicality of abortion law. <br /><br />Bear in mind also that hard cases make bad law.<br /><br />Re romantic view of fetal development, the fact that *sometimes* a fetus' parasitic tendencies can be harmful to its fellow-twin does NOT cancel out the fetus' intrinsic innocence.<br /> <br />>> The foetus is not a moral being, it has no ethics, scruples or principles and is incapable of remorse. <br /><br />Sure. It's still a living organism, though - remorse and scruples are not the criteria for life! Besides, neither is a baby a moral being, it has no ethics, and is incapable of remorse. Surely you don't suggest babies aren't "innocent" just because they are capable of committing acts which can result in harm to someone else (maybe another child, perhaps a parent/other adult)?<br /><br />I have heard of babies and very young children inadvertently harming their parents. By definition these babies are STILL innocent and vulnerable.<br /><br />>> None of this is fluffy, cuddly or particularly nice<br /><br />Of course not - but it still does not negate the points about innocence and vulnerablity.<br /><br />Some of the most innocent and vulnerable people I know have no moral sense - some are profoundly mentally handicapped, some have mental illness. They are hard to live with - but they are still innocent and vulnerable, I hope you'll agree. If nothing, the recent debacle with the Bristol care home for the Learning Disabled should tell us all exactly HOW vulnerable these people are.<br /><br />LRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-5296931391661884252011-07-12T12:51:27.267-07:002011-07-12T12:51:27.267-07:00Tilly Floss,
>> Abortion is not available &...Tilly Floss,<br /><br />>> Abortion is not available "on tap"<br /><br />Yes, it is. But you still have to take yourself to the mains supply - viz, your doctor's surgery.<br /><br />>> the law still demands that two doctors agree that there is reason to terminate. <br /><br />So? The 2 doctors are simply rubber-stamping the procedure. For practical purps, no-one is ever turned away because they don't "qualify". <br /><br />>> But you know that, as you state it in your contradictory post. <br /><br />How is my post contradictory, when NO doctor has ever turned away a woman who wants an abortion? Even those who have qualms end up sending their patients to OTHER docs for the rubber stamp.<br /><br />This undermines my point HOW exactly?<br /><br />LRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-25481898672525948062011-07-12T12:36:49.347-07:002011-07-12T12:36:49.347-07:00Sorry, forgot to sign - the above post was from me...Sorry, forgot to sign - the above post was from me as well.<br /><br />(Continued).<br /><br />Tilly Floss,<br /><br />As for all the other categories you mention - none of them existed prior to 1967, as there was no ultrasound or triple test to tell you that your baby had a cleft lip or Down syndrome, or PGD to warn you that it might carry the gene for diabetes or whatever unspeakable illness you wish for your offspring to avoid (note : I use "you" for convenience, it's not personal).<br /><br />The BIGGEST reason for having abortions in this country is still SOCIAL - not disability, not anything else. This too is fact, however much you wish to avoid hearing the truth.<br /><br />As for the hardluck stories by various posters about children with disabilities - spare me. My extended family is full of disabled people. Their parents didn't decide to kill them (although they could have), they chose instead to give them life. Some of these disabled individuals have contributed more to society than some able-bodied people I know.<br /><br />The fact that society puts a *value* on people's lives, by judging how "perfect" their bodies are, is surely cause for disquiet - not a reason to destroy. Any human being, even one born "perfect", can develop minor/major imperfections (whether by disease, accident or some other tragedy) at ANY stage in their lives - life has a habit of doing this to people. I don't think anyone has as yet found a foolproof recipe for having a perfect disease- and disability-free body OR life (if they do, let me know. I'll buy it!!).<br /><br />If you strive for perfection so early on, by eliminating all the imperfect (whether it is the mother's poor financial status, or the baby's cardiac anomaly), you are bound to be disappointed as imperfection will surely catch up later in life - and the fall-out might be much worse than having a baby with a disablity. It's called the law of karma - but this being a christian site and all, you might be more familiar with the biblical "As ye sow, so shall ye reap". Actions have consequences.<br /><br />LRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-80580340946547913632011-07-12T12:30:22.230-07:002011-07-12T12:30:22.230-07:00Tilly Floss,
>> LR - I must take exception ...Tilly Floss,<br /><br />>> LR - I must take exception to the inference that Backstreet abortions happened only because of social stigma. <br /><br />FYI it ain't "inference", it's FACT. In your haste to fall over yourself to appease the pro-abortion gang (I note you are sitting on the fence by seeming to appreciate *both* sides of the divide - very commendable and all that, but you simply can't have it both ways - sorry. This is an ethical discussion about ONE medical procedure, i.e. the deliberate destruction of a conceptus - so both parties simply cannot be right), you seem to be resorting to fiction.<br /><br />Of course they also happened in cases of rape, but those were the minority - and social stigma still applied.<br /><br />I would be interested to hear if you have any other hypotheses to offer. You might like to educate yourself, in the meantime, by reading some well-reserached authors on the subject. There are even pro-abortionists who will confirm this, if only you care to look (and not on the internet - try your local library). <br /><br />>> I think that is ludicrous.<br /><br />Hmmm.... so if someone say NATO bombed Libya, that would be "ludicrous" just because you don't LIKE the idea?! I believe it, cos my sources are reliable, even though I dislike the idea (about Libya, I mean). Some folks just can't take the truth, huh. <br /><br />>> Even if I take on board your point - that women have abortions because they can, look at the reasons for those. <br /><br />Not relevant - because reasons don't justify killing. One may have any number of reasons, all of them good, for getting rid of a number of unpleasant individuals. I don't think anyone will buy the line that one had "good reason" (even if they have the utmost sympathy for your circumstances) if one committed an act which was unethical. For example (and it's only an example, so don't draw correlations which don't exist) I will sympathise enormously with women or men in abusive relationships who kill their tormentors - but what they do is independent of my sympathy and still morally WRONG, *regardless* of the circs, not *because* of them. <br /><br />"Your honour - my client did indeed commit this murder - but he had good reason, my Lord" is unlikely to result in an acquittal!<br /><br />>> Women terminate pregnancies because....<br /><br />Yah, yah - a multitude of reasons. So what? Either a thing is good, or it is bad. A bad action cannot suddenly become "good" just because X, Y or Z occurred to make it so. So while I might empathise (and I do) with those women who abort out of "necessity", I can still hate what they do without hating THEM, or failing to understand why they felt driven to it.<br /><br />>> If you think that all goes away because there is no longer a social stigma attached to single motherhood you are very wrong.<br /><br />Who said any of that went away?<br /><br />My point is they would be having their babies if the law didn't offer them this so-called choice. <br /><br />My post was made in response to someone's comment about BACKSTREET abortions - you seem to have missed that bit. B.street abortions were almost SOLELY due to social stigma - the odd married woman might have resorted to them, but *most* of these women were unmarried and carrying illegitimate children - this is not a figment of my imagination, or something I conjured up to bolster my case, but indisputable FACT.<br /><br />So yes, my point still stands. The social stigma is not there - so backstreet abortions are NOT going to be rampant even if abortion were made illegal today (fat chance!!).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-25428372677734153002011-07-12T11:06:24.464-07:002011-07-12T11:06:24.464-07:00Tilly Floss,
You too appear to be missing the poi...Tilly Floss,<br /><br />You too appear to be missing the point. I fear some of you would fare very badly as witnesses in a court of law! You all seem to think that if a person states this or that, that it is a "suggestion" for the rest of the population to follow.<br /><br />So let me spell it out.<br /><br />>> I do think that suggesting abstinence as the ONLY way to avoid pregnancy is disingenuous<br /><br />Firstly, not a *suggestion*. I was stating FACTS. Medically, it IS the only way to avoid a pregnancy that has a HUNDRED PERCENT success. All other methods have a tiny failure rate. Abstinence does not (well, not unless you believe in virgin births).<br /><br />Whether you choose abstinence or not is not the point. The point I was trying to counter was the one about "choice" i.e. women having the choice NOT to be pregnant. Yes, women have this choice. They should exercise it better by trying not to GET pregnant in the first place (by whatever is their preferred method of contraception), and if that fails they should be responsible and allow the end-product of their intercourse (i.e. a baby) to be given a chance. Getting preg and then killing the conceptus is not correct.<br /><br />To claim that it is NOT their fault they got pregnant is disingenuous. When you have sex, there is a very real risk of getting pregnant. If you wish NOT to take this risk, the correct thing to do is either abstain OR keep the baby, not kill it.<br /><br />Most of us cannot abstain - so we should be prepared to be responsbile enough to keep the baby in case contraception fails.<br /><br />LRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-75296961728176017172011-07-12T10:50:27.225-07:002011-07-12T10:50:27.225-07:00"Re your point about marriage and sex -
irre..."Re your point about marriage and sex - <br />irrelevant". <br />>> Well that's good and sound debating then! <br /><br />Dear Anonymous,<br />Actually, it IS good and sound debating. It's a technique that lawyers frequently employ, as it is based on sound logic and not rampant emotionalism - you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept. So let me clue you in - some things are relevant to the discussion. Other things are red herrings DELIBERATELY meant to derail the discussion, by pretending that the author actually said/implied something they actually never had. Liz M attributed motives and sayings to me that I most defintely did NOT state.<br /><br />To explain it in simple terms - it does not matter whether I'm married or having a one-night stand with a stranger I picked up in a bar. The only way I can get pregnant (other than by Artificial insemination) is by having sex. The only SURE-fire way to AVOID a pregnancy is by avoiding sex. <br /><br />Geddit now?<br /><br />Liz M set up a strawman argument and then resorted to drawing ludicrous conclusions (that I was advocating abstinence for married women!!) that I most def did not suggest.<br /><br />I was merely pointing out that people should choose to take responsibility for their actions. The question of marriage simply does not come into it.<br /><br />I am sure you are intelligent enough to see that - although it would not suit your purposes to admit it, perhaps.<br /><br />I am married, but I don't think this gives me a right to be irresponsible.<br /><br />Btw, surely Liz M is not suggesting that married women have MORE right to sex than unmarried ones!! See, I too can put words in people's mouths and evoke my own moral indigation.<br /><br /><br />LRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-34517982815218586102011-07-12T10:36:36.770-07:002011-07-12T10:36:36.770-07:00Sorry, that last post was from me.
LRSorry, that last post was from me.<br /><br />LRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-47710250815679462772011-07-12T10:35:54.428-07:002011-07-12T10:35:54.428-07:00>> Well, if a fetus is not part of a woman&#...>> Well, if a fetus is not part of a woman's body, then logically it wouldn't need a woman's body to develop to full term. (Liz M)<br /><br />Wrong again.<br /><br />A lot of living things can only grow to maturity with the nutrition provided by a host body - whether this host is a human or some other living creature. We term these dependent entities "foreign bodies" i.e. not intrinically or "naturally" part of the host, but alien to it. These foreign bodies do not become "part" of the body, they are parasitic and resident there. Only a very foolish individual would claim, for example, that a tapeworm is "part" of a human being's body. It's a parasite - it feeds and grows inside the host. If expelled, it cannot survive on its own.<br /><br />>> Logically if a fetus isn't part of a woman's body then it cold be grown in a petri dish or test tube. <br /><br />Wrong - see above. In a sense, the human fetus is a parasite, as it needs ongoing nutrition from a living source. This nutrition is conveyed through its host's body - this is the reason we are able to use surrogate mothers to act as hosts for other people's sperm and eggs. It would be ludicrous for a surrogate to claim that an embryo is part of HER body just because she agrees to be the vehicle! No, it isn't part of her body - she's merely the human petri-dish.<br /><br />The *important* difference between ordinary parasites and the human fetus, of course, is that the fetus has been created as the result of a physiological process and not a pathological one. One cannot, therefore, use the same argument re expulsion as for pathological parasites.<br /><br />If I get on a bus, and it conveys me from point A to point B, I don't become "part" of the bus, not even if the bus driver/owner gives me free food and drink and supports me during the journey - I am merely a temporary resident.<br /><br />There are also some non-living things that can only grow inside a host body - for e.g. kidney stones, bladder stones. These entities too need a host. No-one in their right mind would claim that a bladder stone was "part" of them. The reason that patients wish to expel these things (whether stones or parasitic worms) is because they are HUGELY detrimental to their health. Of course, a pregancy CAN be detrimental in a minority of cases, and can endanger the mother's life. In all my professional life, I have come across fewer than 5 of these cases. All were women in remote areas of the 3rd world who had NOT received proper ante-natal care (had they done so, this could have been avoided), because none was available in the boondocks where they lived - consequently they had developed a condition which would have been fatal had the pregnancy not been terminated. Termination was done *reluctantly*, after ALL other medical measures failed, in order to save the mother's life.<br /><br />The vast majority of cases in the UK, however, do not fall under this category - I don't think anyone can pretend otherwise. Pregnancy, it must be remembered, is a physiological state, and we have made such ENORMOUS strides in maternal and fetal care, that the 3rd world scenario mentioned above is practically unheard of in the West.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-78443013922510014022011-07-12T10:30:13.091-07:002011-07-12T10:30:13.091-07:00> Re your point about marriage and sex -
> ...> Re your point about marriage and sex - <br />> irrelevant. <br /><br />Well that's good and sound debating then!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-38929103263134206402011-07-12T09:47:09.070-07:002011-07-12T09:47:09.070-07:00(Continued).
You call me a pro-life christian, wh...(Continued).<br /><br />You call me a pro-life christian, when you have no clue at all as to my religion or if I even have one! FYI, there are many atheists among my close family and friends who are much more vociferously anti-abortion than I am. Most of them are not from "christian" backgrounds either. You really should shed this absurd Eurocentric/Christianocentric worldview - there are people other than Europeans and christians in this world. It may interest you to know I wasn't always anti-abortion. As a young medical student, I too blindly swallowed the propaganda that was fed to me via teachers, elders, and textbooks - after all abortion was legal, so it can't be wrong. Like many others before me (and, sadly, after me) I was led by the law rather than my own conscience. After all, if it's lawful, it must be ethical, right? Wrong. Some countries have horrendouslyy immoral and unethical laws. In Saudi Arabia, for example, it is lawful to punish offenders with amputation. As decent civilised people, most of us would be horrified by this - and rightly so. And yet we have the arrogance to claim that the laws of ONE country are "right" simply because "it's the law", while the laws of those countries we despise and view as "morally inferior" are allegedly wrong. I think some Saudi nationals may disagree.<br /><br />As I got older and started thinking for myself, thankfully I shed the brainwashing I'd been subjected to earlier. FYI most of the alleged christians I have met (particularly in my home country) have tended to be heavily pro-abortion - so another massive error on your part, if you assume I have been "christianised" into being anti-abortion.<br /><br />Some things are just ethically and morally wrong - but the problem is we have allowed our moral compasses to become skewed by the law. We assume that just because something is "legal", that it MUST be, by extension, also "ok".<br /><br />The truth is you, like most others, are led by the law when you talk of being dragged back into the previous century. The only issue relevant here is whether something is morally and ethically right, not whether the law permits it - laws come and go, but our moral standards should always remain the same.<br /><br />LRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-92207619658739997882011-07-12T09:35:25.151-07:002011-07-12T09:35:25.151-07:00Liz M,
First of all, let me make it quite clear t...Liz M,<br /><br />First of all, let me make it quite clear that I was directed to this website by a medical colleague who thought I might add to the debate - I wasn't aware of its existence prior to that. The chap who suggested I post happens to be christian, but that is irrelevant. I have only skim-read the posts above, but there seems to be an absurd assumption (not least by you) that views that are pro-life (a term I abhor ALMOST as much as the absurd euphemism "pro-choice") are almost universally "christian". I have not stated my religion anywhere (or even if I HAVE any!), nor my ethnicity, nor anything else of my background, other than to say that I am female, medical, and against abortion. I only stated my gender because all too often there are women claiming that they hold the exclusive copyright/patent on pregnancy and its consequences, and that men have no right to talk about abortion (unless of course they are supportive, in which case they are welcomed into the sisterhood). Well, I am a woman and I disagree. Men contribute to the process (I believe no-one has yet patented cloning, or reproduction without sperm), and a man is forced to pay child support even when he does NOT wish the pregnancy to continue. We can't have it both ways - and yet, sadly, our society permits us to, and men get a raw deal all round when it comes to their offspring).<br /><br />I have had a quick look at another couple of "abortion articles" on this forum, and I note that there is at least ONE pro-life poster who has stated unequivocally that he is NOT a christian, while his name betrays the fact that he is unlikely to be white (also gives a clue as to ethnicity). So it's pretty clear that anti-abortion views have *nothing* to do with one's stated religion or anything else.<br /><br />Re your point about marriage and sex - irrelevant. There is a very BASIC physiological principle that most intelligent individuals would follow - viz, that no contraception is 100% protective, and pregnancy is always a PHSYSIOLOGICAL (i.e. written into the code by pretty much immutable laws of nature) RISK, ergo if you wish to avoid it, there IS only ONE fool-proof way - and that is abstinence. Your extrapolating from this to state that I am advising married people (or indeed anyone else) to never have sex is so ludicrous as to be laughable. The point, which you appear to have missed spectacularly, is that pregnancy CAN be an UNAVOIDABLE consequence of having sex. In short, every time I indulge (whether with a long-term partner or anyone else) I should, if I had any sense at all, be acutely aware that I am setting myself up for trouble (assuming a pregnancy is the last thing I want). Providing abortion as essentially a means of contraception (because ultimately that's what social abortions amount to), in order to overcome this problem of failed contraception and a resultant unwanted pregnancy, is morally and ethically wrong.<br /><br />Most people (whether married or unmarried) would want to have sex. Ergo, take precautions - but if it fails, suck it up (not literally, I hasten to add!!) and deal with it - not by "termination" (another loathsome euphemism) but by welcoming another life into the world.<br /><br />Also, the vast majority of abortions in this country, particularly the REPEAT terminations undertaken as a substitute for contraception, are "social" abortions undertaken by women who tend to be *unmarried*. But you knew that. <br /><br />The fact that there are *exceptions* is irrelevant - if anything, they only prove the rule. <br /><br />This forum software does not seem to support long diatribes, so I will continue below!<br /><br />LRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-54196461134067628102011-07-12T09:34:23.397-07:002011-07-12T09:34:23.397-07:00Liz, First of all less than 1% of abortions are ca...Liz, First of all less than 1% of abortions are carried out because of rape so why don't we leave that to one side for the time being and concentrate on the other 99% ;o)<br /><br />The pro choice argument is simply that actions have consequences, the consequence of the CHOICE to have sex is that you might get pregnant, the consequence of this is a child. The argument that human beings should be responsible for their actions does not negate the right to make a choice, it simply says that there comes a point when you have already made that choice and you have to live with it, I think we'd agree that once a child has been created it's too late to change your mind on whether or not you want to live with the consequences of your choice wouldn't we? Unless you think it would be alright for me to get rid of my seven year old because i didn't mean to get pregnant with him in the first place? Not being facetious, just pointing out that I am sure you agree that there comes a point in time that a woman who has CHOSEN to have sex and make a baby cannot choose to simply do away with that child- the point of difference between us then is simply at what point this is, for a pro life person, once conception has taken place a baby has been created and to abort that baby isn't any different from me smothering my seven year old- whether or not the reasons are good and understandable. <br /><br />I agree that just saying "don't have sex then" shows a lack of understanding and empathy, however the pro life stance is that whilst a woman should be cared for and supported if she's in a situation where she's having an unwanted pregnancy that doesn't make it alright to have an abortion, because from the pro life point of view an abortion is ending a life and I am sure if you can understand that a pro life person believes a feotus is no different to a child (whether or not you agree with it) then surely you can see that wanting to protect a child does not necessarily mean you don't want to support the mother.<br /><br />Neither then does wanting to protect a child make you a misogynist. Just like us pro life people shouldn't be calling you pro choice people selfish lazy murderers because that's not true neither should you be saying it's mysoginistic to want to protect a child. If I can understand that your motivation is to give women choices and control over their bodies rather than simply to do away with children that may cause you an inconvenience surely you can see that my motivation is simply to protect children rather than make women lesser human beings.<br /><br />Finally- Your reference to Christians and God seems a little weird- you don't have to be a Christian to be pro life....and does the fact that I feel upset that baby P was murdered also mean I have a mysoginistic God? From my point of view there is no difference between the two. I appreciate you don't view a feotus as a baby but I do, how does this make me anti women and what does it have to do with God?<br /><br />One other thing though, this demonstration was against proposals that don't even discuss the rights and wrongs of abortion so I don't even know why we're discussing them. The proposals are about giving women considering an abortion proper independent information about all their options and all the consequences of their options, so really that's what this debate SHOULD be about. If you're pro choice how can you be against giving women full and prOper information on which to make an INFORMED choice?sarah willisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-91099275143608547442011-07-12T06:01:30.316-07:002011-07-12T06:01:30.316-07:00> Women who want "choice" should choo...> Women who want "choice" should choose <br />> abstinence if they wish not to get pregnant. <br /><br />I will make sure to tell my husband that, as much as he loves me, I'm not going to let him show that physically, just in case my chosen form of contraception fails. <br /><br />What about women who make it clear to a man that they don't want to have sex with a man and then gets raped. Are you trying to imply that it's her fault that she gets raped, even though she has consciously decided that she doesn't want sex ? <br /><br />Using the abstinence argument against unwanted pregnancies is the most black and white (and ignorant) argument going. It misses all the reasons that lead to pregnancy in the first place. Not all women are drunken teenagers sleeping around willy nilly, much as you'd like to pretend otherwise. <br /><br />> Calling a pregancy a "part of your body" is <br />> both stupid and offensive. It is nothing of <br />> the sort.<br />Well, if a fetus is not part of a woman's body, then logically it wouldn't need a woman's body to develop to full term. Logically if a fetus isn't part of a woman's body then it cold be grown in a petri dish or test tube. We're not currently at a point in science when we can do that. <br /><br />I don't know whether all you pro-life Christians have a misogynistic god, or whether you just have a misogynistic interpretation of scripture - but your desire to keep the status of women stuck in the last century is downright scary. <br /><br />Liz MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-11458151198656790742011-07-12T02:41:35.138-07:002011-07-12T02:41:35.138-07:00Dr Christopher Shell, I don't suggest giving e...Dr Christopher Shell, I don't suggest giving equal weight to every viewpoint I suggest giving equal respect to every human being and in order to do that one must try to understand other peoples viewpoints.<br /><br />I hate abortion. I think it's horrific. Up until about 12 months ago I couldn't conceive that anyone in their right mind could think abortion was okay, in my mind the only kind of people that could think abortion was okay were the same kind of people who think murder is okay.<br /><br />But evidently this isn't the case. In fact the majority of the population think abortion is okay. I came to a point where I had to reconcile that mothers, wives, carers, ordinary loving human beings didn't abhor abortion. Normal everyday people who love children and care about other human beings, who don't want to murder kids for their own convenience are pro choice.<br /><br />Now, of course, as I am not pro-choice I believe they are wrong. As a Christian I believe they are deceived. But I don't believe they are malicious, lazy selfish people. I do not respect their point of view, but I make an effort to empathise with and understand their point of view so that I can respect them as people, and I hope that this goes some way towards them also listening to me and respecting me a bit more, and perhaps then we can have a more productive dialogue where we find solutions rather than just shouting at one anothersarah willisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-53308517954446452912011-07-12T01:43:24.223-07:002011-07-12T01:43:24.223-07:00Sarah Willis - you are so wrong in saying there ar...Sarah Willis - you are so wrong in saying there are different 'views' and implying that is teh end of the matter. (1) Of course scientifically informed and uninformed people will hold different 'views' from each other; (2) of course people without and with a vested interest will hold different 'views'; (3) of course altruistic and selfish people will hold different 'views'. Who would expect otherwise? But it is certainly eccentric (plain wrong) to give equal weight to the latter as to the former in each case 1,2,3. -Dr Christopher ShellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-3960395050759909532011-07-11T16:13:18.051-07:002011-07-11T16:13:18.051-07:00Peter, you wrote way back towards the beginning of...Peter, you wrote way back towards the beginning of these comments "Vulnerable human beings I believe deserve legal protection against those who might have an interest in their deaths." OK, true story. The daughter of a friend of mine became pregnant with twins. She, her husband and the whole family were thrilled. Some months into the pregnancy, however, and it was apparent that something was horribly wrong. One baby, Rose, was flourishing at the expense of the other. Rose grew stronger while Chloe weakened. At just over seven months, the birth was induced but, sadly, Chloe died within a few days. So how would you have saved baby Chloe from baby Rose?<br /><br />My point is that in your choice of vocabularly, the use of words like "innocent", "defenceless" and so on, you tend to present a rather romantic view of foetal development.<br /><br />The foetus is not a moral being, it has no ethics, scruples or principles and is incapable of remorse. It will kill siblings, leach whatever nutrients it needs from its mother irrespective of any long-term health problems this might give her, even kill her. None of this is fluffy, cuddly or particularly nice so let's have some realism when we talk about foetal development. Fern WinterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-64091263182452755942011-07-11T12:20:47.180-07:002011-07-11T12:20:47.180-07:00Peter, I haven't addressed the remainder of LR...Peter, I haven't addressed the remainder of LR's comments because I didn't feel they were addressed to me or to my standpoint.<br />I don't think that there is a "justification" for abortion. I haven't denied that abortion is legal only on medical grounds - in fact I made that point, it was LR who said that abortions were available "on tap", I quote:<br /><br /><br />"women today are doing it simply because it's there - i.e. they are taking advantage of the fact that the LAW permits it. In other words, if it were illegal, they wouldn't be having it - because the reason to resort to backstreet abortions no longer exists. The reason nowdays is CONVENIENCE - abortion is available on tap, and women no longer take adequate precautions to prevent a pregnancy. You can sleep around with whomever you want, whenever you want, without thought for the consequences, because if you get pregnant you still have the "safety net" of being permitted to kill your own child anyway. Women who did not have such a safety net might think twice before engaging in irresponsible behaviour (obviously this applies to the men too)."<br /><br />It is not my opinion that a foetus is an appendage. <br /><br />I do think that suggesting abstinence as the ONLY way to avoid pregnancy is disingenuous. I have had sex with only one man, my husband, we used the contraceptive pill but (we think probably due to at the time undiagnosed coeliac disease) it was ineffective for me, and I became pregnant, not once but 3 times in the space of the three years immediately following our marriage. Now for us, there was no need for discussion, children were always in our hopes for the future and though we hadn't planned them yet there was no doubt that we would continue the pregnancies and raise our children. But that is me and I have the beliefs I do.<br />Would your response to another woman, finding herself in my position, married, having acted responsibly but nevertheless unexpectedly pregnant, be: "well you shouldn't have had sex"?<br />What about friends of mine who's child died, horribly, because of a rare genetic problem they both carry, they're married, should they never have sex because a pregnancy might ensue? <br />Abstinence is not a good enough answer for the majority of the population.<br /><br />We cannot state that the number of backstreet abortions performed was tiny, we can't there is no real evidence to give us any clear idea of how prolific the practice was.<br /><br />And I never used the word inflammatory.<br /><br />I think that about covers it.Tilly Flossnoreply@blogger.com