Is it a sin??????

[joebloggs]

My argument is with those who feel it is wrong in every circumstance. To refer to a fertilised egg as an "unborn child" is simply wrong. In my view, it is still part of the mother until born and able to breath unaided. Therefore the primary duty of all doctors must be to the mother until then. I know some find it difficult and refuse to get involved. That is their personal decision.

i don't think its wrong in every circumstance, but i don't agree with your view on a unborn baby, but that's your view and your entitled to it, but many doctors do not agree with you, and it goes against the original Hippocratic Oath, so it should not be a personal decision at all for doctors, thou some med school had taken the abortion part out of their version of the oath.

as i've already said abortion is not allowed in the original oath, so its not just a doctors personal beliefs, but written in the oath,not to take part in abortions and to preserve all life, my wife has seen many abortions, and has a degree in biology and medicine, and after more than 10years studying at uni. so she knows what the risks are to the mother if she has an abortion (risk of never having kids again, 6 * risk of committing suicide than a 1st time mother, etc) but she is still totally against abortions if it is not a danger to the mother.

from the nhs website..
A doctor or nurse has the right to refuse to take part in abortion if they do not believe in abortion. However, they should always refer you on to another doctor or nurse who will help. The General Medical Council guidance for doctors makes it clear that a doctor's 'personal beliefs' should not affect patient care. There is similar guidance provided by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for nurses, and by The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain for pharmacists.

this is a cop out by the GMC, saying they can refuse to take part if they do not believe in abortion, when its not allowed in the original oath, and the GMC know they can not force doctors to do abortions, and what would happen if the GMC had tired to force all doctors to carry out abortions?

no woman should have to go thru an abortion, no doctor should have to perform one, and no life should be lost..

and we will never agree by the looks of it

[aromulus]

We can debate this until we are blue in the face and still not get to some common ground.

Yes, it is a thorny, very thorny subject and I for one, am very confused.
I see all points raised are valid and without a doubt show real concern for the issue.

In the end, if the risk of losing the mother is so great that no other alternative can be found to save both, then I think it should be allowed, provided the woman gives consent.

This subject, really, is closely related to research on human embryos.
In some aspects the catholic church is right in being against it, as it will take us somewhere where in the end we will not be very happy... Clones, designer babies, etc.

I said to myself that I wasn't going to get involved in this one, but too late now.
It struck a very painful chord.....

[joebloggs]

just like an Italian,

wait til the fightings is all over




sorry dom


the number of cases where the mothers life is at risk are low, most abortions are carried out because the woman doesn't want it, remember the ads, a dog is not just for xmas, a dog is for life ? pitty they don't have the same ad for babies


the sun is shining, the front garden needs weeding, and i'll see if i can trick, and mean get little joe to help me

[Piamed]

Health care professionals are primarily concerned with maintaining each and every life, full stop.

And that's the problem isn't it? I, and many others, do not accept that "life" exists at the moment of conception, but only that the potential for "life" exists, whereas a mother is clearly alive and that she must receive the primary concern.

I do not think the F1 car is the best analogy (I know where you are coming from though) but sticking to it for illustrative purposes, I would say the following: If the engine of a F1 car is running but the car is in the pit being tweaked by engineers during fuelling it is no less an F1 car. Reason that the mothers body is the team of engineers and the fuelling line is the umbilical cord.

Rather confused thinking I fear. If the car was totally finished and ready to race, but simply in the pits being tuned, you are right and the same applies, of course, to a baby who is viable. What we are discussing though is not that. I was suggesting that the car's engine was ready,working and being tested, but that the rest of the car was still being developed prior to assembly. Therefore it was not yet a viable F1 car, in the same way a baby is not really a baby until it is complete and able to live without it's mother.
I know we are rather getting bogged down in this and that views are deeply entrenched but I think it is helpful for those who hold the opposing view to be exposed to the rational of those who don't share that viewpoint. I used to be strongly "pro-life" until I thought more deeply about it and realised my arguments were based upon emotions rather than reality.

That health care professionals are primarily concerned with maintaining each and every life cannot be positioned as a problem. From the moment of conception what is growing inside the women is very clearly alive both scientifically and morally. Anyone who knows anything about basic biology can attest to the former. The moral rationale underpinning the validity of life regardless of age or stage of development, is clear to those for whom it is important.

I agree that the analogy and it's development detract from the issue at hand. I am not pro-life at all; I am anti-abortion generally and believe that an abortion is both ending the life of an individual and their potential.

The result of an abortion is that an innocent human being is killed simply because they're in the way and can't defend themselves. That is a legal definition of murder. Don't believe me? Then look check out California state law: "Murder defined: death of a fetus. Paragraph A- Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought." There is a caveat provided to ensure mother's do not get prosecuted as long as they effectively do it in a state registered clinic where the practitioners are also exempt from prosecution Otherwise it's murder pinishable by law. Bottom line: it's murder but if done in a state registered clinic we will not prosecute you.

If you re-read all my posts you will see that I am not suggesting for a moment that abortion is an easy or desirable thing. Far from it, in my view it should always be an action of last resort, the least worse choice, when all other options have failed. Abortion as an alternative to contraception is not acceptable to me at all. I also don't minimise the emotional turmoil undergone by women who undergo an abortion, having witnessed it at first hand.

It would appear that we are aligned on the key issue stated above. You have your own emotional view about unborn babies that is at odds with basic biology but I accept that is your view. It is however an obviously emotional one.

no woman should have to go thru an abortion, no doctor should have to perform one, and no life should be lost..

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!

[joebloggs]

reasons given for abortions..

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
- Feels she can't afford baby 23%
- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
- Interference with education/career plans 4%
- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
- Other reasons <6.5%
TOTAL: 93%
(Approx.)

"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)
- Mother's Health 4%
- Baby may have health problem 3%
- Rape or Incest <0.5%

from http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/r...abortions.html -pro life group,. but i've checked with other sites, and the figures are roughly the same...

93% are because of social reasons..
7% are for medical reasons...

200,000+ abortions in the uk last year -

186,000 aborted because of 'social' reasons..
14,000 for medical reasons..

something the uk can be proud of

[SurvivingAngel]

reasons given for abortions..

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
- Feels she can't afford baby 23%
- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
- Interference with education/career plans 4%
- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
- Other reasons <6.5%
TOTAL: 93%
(Approx.)

"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)
- Mother's Health 4%
- Baby may have health problem 3%
- Rape or Incest <0.5%

from http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/r...abortions.html -pro life group,. but i've checked with other sites, and the figures are roughly the same...

93% are because of social reasons..
7% are for medical reasons...

200,000+ abortions in the uk last year -

186,000 aborted because of 'social' reasons..
14,000 for medical reasons..

something the uk can be proud of

This only goes to show that some people are not responsible enough for the consequences of their actions. We are now living in a modern society, it's outrageous to see that most women who have had abortion have these social reasons in killing their own flesh and blood. With all the contraceptives you can avail of, some people are not resourceful enough.

[JudyHon]

That health care professionals are primarily concerned with maintaining each and every life cannot be positioned as a problem. From the moment of conception what is growing inside the women is very clearly alive both scientifically and morally. Anyone who knows anything about basic biology can attest to the former. The moral rationale underpinning the validity of life regardless of age or stage of development, is clear to those for whom it is important.

The result of an abortion is that an innocent human being is killed simply because they're in the way and can't defend themselves. That is a legal definition of murder. Don't believe me? Then look check out California state law: "Murder defined: death of a fetus. Paragraph A- Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought." There is a caveat provided to ensure mother's do not get prosecuted as long as they effectively do it in a state registered clinic where the practitioners are also exempt from prosecution Otherwise it's murder pinishable by law. Bottom line: it's murder but if done in a state registered clinic we will not prosecute you.

Anyone who knows about basic biology will know that the post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being. Should we save them all too? This line in the sand is arbitrary.

A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being. Even you indicated in your initial post that it was a ‘potential being’. I am a potential millionaire, but unfortunately I won’t be making a down payment on that Sunseeker just yet. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’. Therefore to apply principles accepted for human beings to the blastocyst is a logical fallacy.

Far from the suggestion that ‘ I suspect that the notion that what is effectively murder is misplaced, stems from a desire to tone down the truth. What I have said is correct both legally and morally as any review of the extant literature will reveal.’ This is plain wrong. The dictionary definition of ‘murder’ also refers to killing of a human being. So you are the one with terminology issues. Unless you really believe that week one embryo is a human being. That to me is extreme.

And to cherry-pick legislation to support an argument will not achieve much when it is the exception. That one US state takes such an interpretation does not make it more than an aberration. Even the legislation quoted refers separately to a human being or a foetus. Most in the US and Western Europe do not take this view.

If we are to speak on legality, then I am glad the UK is enlightened enough to enshrine a woman’s rights over her body until the foetus can reasonably survive to become a viable human being without her body. I can’t see it changing any time soon, thank goodness.

This is a deeply personal decision for the mother and to a lesser extent the father. She has the most invested, the most to gain or lose from her decision. Personally, I think anyone else has zero right to comment. A friend should support her, or stop being her friend. Advice is fine if it is based on experience or expertise, but not from personal beliefs. They are called ‘personal’ for a reason.

[adam&chryss]

Anyone who knows about basic biology will know that the post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being. Should we save them all too? This line in the sand is arbitrary.

A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being. Even you indicated in your initial post that it was a ‘potential being’. I am a potential millionaire, but unfortunately I won’t be making a down payment on that Sunseeker just yet. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’. Therefore to apply principles accepted for human beings to the blastocyst is a logical fallacy.

Far from the suggestion that ‘ I suspect that the notion that what is effectively murder is misplaced, stems from a desire to tone down the truth. What I have said is correct both legally and morally as any review of the extant literature will reveal.’ This is plain wrong. The dictionary definition of ‘murder’ also refers to killing of a human being. So you are the one with terminology issues. Unless you really believe that week one embryo is a human being. That to me is extreme.

And to cherry-pick legislation to support an argument will not achieve much when it is the exception. That one US state takes such an interpretation does not make it more than an aberration. Even the legislation quoted refers separately to a human being or a foetus. Most in the US and Western Europe do not take this view.

If we are to speak on legality, then I am glad the UK is enlightened enough to enshrine a woman’s rights over her body until the foetus can reasonably survive to become a viable human being without her body. I can’t see it changing any time soon, thank goodness.

This is a deeply personal decision for the mother and to a lesser extent the father. She has the most invested, the most to gain or lose from her decision. Personally, I think anyone else has zero right to comment. A friend should support her, or stop being her friend. Advice is fine if it is based on experience or expertise, but not from personal beliefs. They are called ‘personal’ for a reason.

May I ask how many children sir has?

[JudyHon]

May I ask how many children sir has?

May I ask how the number of children someone has has any relevance upon an objective ethical discussion?

[adam&chryss]

You can ask and i`ll answer after you give me your answer, or maybe you have.

[JudyHon]

You can ask and i`ll answer after you give me your answer, or maybe you have.

It seems a pity that people views are not considered objectively, and on their merits. When arguments are not rebutted, but summarily dismissed due to the situation of the person holding views, it's a bit sad.

Some could argue that parents are particularly ill-suited to advise in this area as their judgements will be necessarily clouded by their personal experience that would most likely be a world away from the terrible circumstances that some pregnant women find themselves in. Perhaps the only people who's views should really stand apart from other's are those who have had to make this terrible decision themselves? Not friends, not doctors, not parents, not religious speakers, not forum posters.

I did not intend to post at all on this personal and contentious issue. Judy wanted to give some advice to MrsDaddy and asked me to type her view, which I did. It was one I support - that this is a very personal choice, and any friend should support unconditionally and not advise or judge.

When her post was then undermined in what I think was a somewhat dismissive manner with a for good measure, let’s say I got a bit irritated, and then pursued an ethical debate at some tangent to the start of the thread. Seems however my views are void due to my circumstances.

I still believe a world without abortion would be a dystopia awash with unwanted and maltreated children and dangerous backstreet abortion practices. Perhaps the Catholic Church could step in to take care of these children? Pro-life could work in a perfect world. Unfortunately not in this one.

Actually the answer to the question is that it is a ‘sin’ if you are a true believer, but this should have no bearing on being a friend.

Thnaks

[joebloggs]

May I ask how the number of children someone has has any relevance upon an objective ethical discussion?

i'm still waiting for a mother who calls a baby a foetus

still no takers...

i'll have a wild guess and say your not a parent, or never have given birth.. maybe your view will change when you have, i hope so, because i'm sure when you tell your family and friends your pregnant with a foetus, they will think your

If a foetus does not have a right to life then why aren't all foetus's killed? Also, if a foetus is not a living human being then why does one have to kill it? Why not wait for the foetus to be born and then find out if it really is a living human being?

also are we not all dependant on our environment to sustain our lives? A pre-born baby requires the womb for life. Babies require food and care from others, or they will die. Even adults require air, water, and food from a source outside of themselves.

you keep mentioning 'potential', true we all have the potential to be a millionaire, but also true is that most pregnancies that go full term, will result in the birth of a baby, its more than a 'potential' is it an also certainty that a baby will be born. you may have the potential that you could be PM, but Cameron will almost certainly be MP soon, as a foetus will almost certainly become a baby

not being a mother, i have a good idea thou, of a bond btw a mother and child, and the price and sacrifices a mother will do for their child. no matter what the cost. Nobody or nothing can even come close to the bond a mother and child have, and that bond for many starts the day she finds out she is pregnant

peace to you all. life is too short and precious to waste

[David House]

i'm still waiting for a mother who calls a baby a foetus

still no takers...

i'll have a wild guess and say your not a parent, or never have given birth.. maybe your view will change when you have, i hope so, because i'm sure when you tell your family and friends your pregnant with a foetus, they will think your

If a foetus does not have a right to life then why aren't all foetus's killed? Also, if a foetus is not a living human being then why does one have to kill it? Why not wait for the foetus to be born and then find out if it really is a living human being?

also are we not all dependant on our environment to sustain our lives? A pre-born baby requires the womb for life. Babies require food and care from others, or they will die. Even adults require air, water, and food from a source outside of themselves.

you keep mentioning 'potential', true we all have the potential to be a millionaire, but also true is that most pregnancies that go full term, will result in the birth of a baby, its more than a 'potential' is it an also certainty that a baby will be born. you may have the potential that you could be PM, but Cameron will almost certainly be MP soon, as a foetus will almost certainly become a baby

not being a mother, i have a good idea thou, of a bond btw a mother and child, and the price and sacrifices a mother will do for their child. no matter what the cost. Nobody or nothing can even come close to the bond a mother and child have, and that bond for many starts the day she finds out she is pregnant

peace to you all. life is too short and precious to waste

I don't think anyone under-estimates the emotional tie that a woman feels when she knows she is pregnant, or the stress she feels if she then considers, for whatever reason, having an abortion. I think therefore that we can all agree on this. However, with respect, that is not the point.
The point at issue is the additional guilt which is being laid on her by describing an abortion as taking a "life" or "murder" when it is clear to many of us that it is no such thing. A woman undergoing an abortion is likely to suffer enormous emotional problems, and in my experience they can last for a very long time. For the pro-life lobby to make things worse for her just seems so cruel. What I would like to see is understanding and support given to ease the pain. This is a difficult ethical matter for many people but I think the UK position is about right. When I read some of the extreme views expressed in the USA by the pro-life lobby I shudder at the thinking and am so glad we live in a more liberal country.

[David House]

Anyone who knows about basic biology will know that the post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being. Should we save them all too? This line in the sand is arbitrary.

A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being. Even you indicated in your initial post that it was a ‘potential being’. I am a potential millionaire, but unfortunately I won’t be making a down payment on that Sunseeker just yet. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’. Therefore to apply principles accepted for human beings to the blastocyst is a logical fallacy.

Far from the suggestion that ‘ I suspect that the notion that what is effectively murder is misplaced, stems from a desire to tone down the truth. What I have said is correct both legally and morally as any review of the extant literature will reveal.’ This is plain wrong. The dictionary definition of ‘murder’ also refers to killing of a human being. So you are the one with terminology issues. Unless you really believe that week one embryo is a human being. That to me is extreme.

And to cherry-pick legislation to support an argument will not achieve much when it is the exception. That one US state takes such an interpretation does not make it more than an aberration. Even the legislation quoted refers separately to a human being or a foetus. Most in the US and Western Europe do not take this view.

If we are to speak on legality, then I am glad the UK is enlightened enough to enshrine a woman’s rights over her body until the foetus can reasonably survive to become a viable human being without her body. I can’t see it changing any time soon, thank goodness.

This is a deeply personal decision for the mother and to a lesser extent the father. She has the most invested, the most to gain or lose from her decision. Personally, I think anyone else has zero right to comment. A friend should support her, or stop being her friend. Advice is fine if it is based on experience or expertise, but not from personal beliefs. They are called ‘personal’ for a reason.

It will come as no surprise to anyone following this debate that I agree 100% with this and think it is very well expressed.
I have two children and four grandchildren but fail to see what relevance that has to this discussion.

[joebloggs]

I have two children and four grandchildren but fail to see what relevance that has to this discussion.

and when your wife was pregnant, did she consider it to be a foetus or a baby, and what did you think ?

relevance is, if you've been pregnant you have a better idea of what your talking about than if you haven't.

i'll sum up my case..

The NHS abortion service is heading for a crisis because increasing numbers of doctors refuse to carry out terminations.There has been a big rise in young medics with 'conscientious objections' to abortion.

Science tells us that human life begins at the time of conception. From the moment fertilization takes place, the child's genetic makeup is already complete. Its gender has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning being is the time to grow and develop.

why is there a 24wk limit on abortions in the uk, if it is not a baby until its breathes its first breathe ?

there are many risks from having a abortion. higher risk of suicide, cancer, increased risk to later pregnancies, link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.

93% of abortions are for social reasons, not medical reasons.

that's my views on this and none of my views have got anything to do with religion, but are to preserve life.

[David House]

and when your wife was pregnant, did she consider it to be a foetus or a baby, and what did you think ?

It is too long ago for me to remember and we were both young and immature anyway. Whatever emotional response anyone has does not change the biological facts. We must take decisions on facts and not on emotions.

relevance is, if you've been pregnant you have a better idea of what your talking about than if you haven't.

Why? You only have a better idea of what it is like to be pregnant, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about when "life" exists.

i'll sum up my case..

The NHS abortion service is heading for a crisis because increasing numbers of doctors refuse to carry out terminations.There has been a big rise in young medics with 'conscientious objections' to abortion.

I will take your word on this, although I have seen no such evidence myself. I trust as they get older they might become wiser.

Science tells us that human life begins at the time of conception.

I cannot see any justification for such a statement. In fact I think that "science" actually says rather the opposite. The key word is "human". An fertilised egg is not a "human".

From the moment fertilization takes place, the child's genetic makeup is already complete. Its gender has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning being is the time to grow and develop.

And your point is? No doubt you could extract DNA from an egg and a sperm and calculate what the resultant human would be, but that does not make a human exist. The point is that the fertilised egg/embryo has not yet developed but merely has the potential to do so.

why is there a 24wk limit on abortions in the uk, if it is not a baby until its breathes its first breathe ?

I am no expert but surely that is the very earliest time when it is theoretically possible for a live birth to occur.

there are many risks from having a abortion. higher risk of suicide, cancer, increased risk to later pregnancies, link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.

Which is why it should be an act of last resort and why any women having to face it deserves as much support and understanding as possible, and not an additional layer of guilt.

93% of abortions are for social reasons, not medical reasons.

I too am not comfortable with any abortion carried out as an alternative to contraception.

that's my views on this and none of my views have got anything to do with religion, but are to preserve life.

I have no argument at all about wishing to preserve life. My argument is about when life really starts and about making already stressed women feel guilty.

[joebloggs]

and when your wife was pregnant, did she consider it to be a foetus or a baby, and what did you think ?

It is too long ago for me to remember and we were both young and immature anyway. Whatever emotional response anyone has does not change the biological facts. We must take decisions on facts and not on emotions.

as i said before, i don't know anyone who has said, "I'm pregnant and my foetus is going to be a potential life"

The NHS abortion service is heading for a crisis because increasing numbers of doctors refuse to carry out terminations.There has been a big rise in young medics with 'conscientious objections' to abortion. [/I][/COLOR]

I will take your word on this, although I have seen no such evidence myself. I trust as they get older they might become wiser.

don't take my word, look at the links i posted b4 and search goggle, young or old, many doctors are against abortion and many abortions are carried out by private clinics because many NHS doctors are against it.

you all keep talking about evidence, then show me a link where most doctors are in favour of abortion .

why is there a 24wk limit on abortions in the uk, if it is not a baby until its breathes its first breathe ?

I am no expert but surely that is the very earliest time when it is theoretically possible for a live birth to occur.

if so why is it 12 or 13wks in many parts of Europe ?

there are many risks from having a abortion. higher risk of suicide, cancer, increased risk to later pregnancies, link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.

Which is why it should be an act of last resort and why any women having to face it deserves as much support and understanding as possible, and not an additional layer of guilt.

maybe guilt is the last thing on some women's minds Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said it was "truly appalling" that in England in 2006, there were 59,687 abortions by women who had already had at least one abortion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7385099.stm

93% of abortions are for social reasons, not medical reasons.

I too am not comfortable with any abortion carried out as an alternative to contraception.

again some people are not hearing the message of contraception or don't give a and why should the NHS and doctors have to sort their 'mistake' out


good we agree on some things , but looks like never of the other thnigs

[Jamesey]

Anyone who knows about basic biology will know that the post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being. Should we save them all too? This line in the sand is arbitrary.

A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being. Even you indicated in your initial post that it was a ‘potential being’. I am a potential millionaire, but unfortunately I won’t be making a down payment on that Sunseeker just yet. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’. Therefore to apply principles accepted for human beings to the blastocyst is a logical fallacy.

Far from the suggestion that ‘ I suspect that the notion that what is effectively murder is misplaced, stems from a desire to tone down the truth. What I have said is correct both legally and morally as any review of the extant literature will reveal.’ This is plain wrong. The dictionary definition of ‘murder’ also refers to killing of a human being. So you are the one with terminology issues. Unless you really believe that week one embryo is a human being. That to me is extreme.

And to cherry-pick legislation to support an argument will not achieve much when it is the exception. That one US state takes such an interpretation does not make it more than an aberration. Even the legislation quoted refers separately to a human being or a foetus. Most in the US and Western Europe do not take this view.

If we are to speak on legality, then I am glad the UK is enlightened enough to enshrine a woman’s rights over her body until the foetus can reasonably survive to become a viable human being without her body. I can’t see it changing any time soon, thank goodness.

This is a deeply personal decision for the mother and to a lesser extent the father. She has the most invested, the most to gain or lose from her decision. Personally, I think anyone else has zero right to comment. A friend should support her, or stop being her friend. Advice is fine if it is based on experience or expertise, but not from personal beliefs. They are called ‘personal’ for a reason.

Along with David House, I'm a parent and agree 100% with the quote above.

But I don't see what relevance one's personal situation has. This subject needs to be debated by looking at the facts, without judgment being clouded my emotion or religion.

[joebloggs]

debated by looking at the facts, without judgment being clouded my emotion or religion.

I'm not religious, so no clouds there..

fact most doctors do not want to perform abortions

fact 93% are for social reasons

fact some woman who have abortions face medical and psychological problems.


the only thing i think were disagreeing on, is a foetus 'alive' and whether it is a baby or not

and should a woman be able to decide if and when she can have an abortion.


i find it sad that there are 200,000 abortions in the uk a year for social reasons, you may call these 'mistakes', but is anyone learning from these 'mistakes' ?

there should be no excuse for it in the uk (phils where the lady is from, is a different story), when contraception is sold in many places, and is given freely in some places, wether condom, pill or implant or other methods, the only reason i can think why people dont take them, is that people can not be bothered , and a 'mistake' is made, and ending up in the death of a life. maybe 'potenital' life to you, fact is most would be born if not aborted.

you all talk of facts, well if you have any facts or evidence to show that the vast majority of these 'potential' life's or foetus's would not become normal babies when born, please send me a link. I'm more than willing to read it. if you can't, I take it these 'potential' life's you talk of, are more than a potential, but is a certainty, they would be in the vast majority healthy babies.

were not going to get 10 pages out of this mrs daddy, as we've gone as far as we can get i think . and you owe enough drinks now

[Mrs Daddy]

were not going to get 10 pages out of this mrs daddy, as we've gone as far as we can get i think . and you owe enough drinks now

thats problem solve Mr.Bloggsthanks a lot

[Piamed]

Anyone who knows about basic biology will know that the post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being. Should we save them all too? This line in the sand is arbitrary.

A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being. Even you indicated in your initial post that it was a ‘potential being’. I am a potential millionaire, but unfortunately I won’t be making a down payment on that Sunseeker just yet. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’. Therefore to apply principles accepted for human beings to the blastocyst is a logical fallacy.

Far from the suggestion that ‘ I suspect that the notion that what is effectively murder is misplaced, stems from a desire to tone down the truth. What I have said is correct both legally and morally as any review of the extant literature will reveal.’ This is plain wrong. The dictionary definition of ‘murder’ also refers to killing of a human being. So you are the one with terminology issues. Unless you really believe that week one embryo is a human being. That to me is extreme.

And to cherry-pick legislation to support an argument will not achieve much when it is the exception. That one US state takes such an interpretation does not make it more than an aberration. Even the legislation quoted refers separately to a human being or a foetus. Most in the US and Western Europe do not take this view.

If we are to speak on legality, then I am glad the UK is enlightened enough to enshrine a woman’s rights over her body until the foetus can reasonably survive to become a viable human being without her body. I can’t see it changing any time soon, thank goodness.

This is a deeply personal decision for the mother and to a lesser extent the father. She has the most invested, the most to gain or lose from her decision. Personally, I think anyone else has zero right to comment. A friend should support her, or stop being her friend. Advice is fine if it is based on experience or expertise, but not from personal beliefs. They are called ‘personal’ for a reason.

Sir, are you aware of the basic tenets of life are? Additionally, I refer to extant literature and you respond by saying you have looked at a dictionary.

I understand why you might believe that particular legislation was cherry-picked. Actually, I came across it by accident but it was relevant so it was included. I'm sure you appreciate my position is clearly not based upon that 1 piece of legislation. There are other references to be found; I just dont have the time to pull them out. That you do not think an unborn baby is a human is beyond words and takes you into a realm of incredulity.

I've stated some of my experience and alluded to my expertise. If you believe others without both of these determinants have no right to comment, why are you doing so? It appears as though in your haste to be part of a discussion you've again tripped over your own exuberance.

The bottom line is that you speak of facts without emotion, religion and emotional bias, yet have presented no facts. Whether 100 people agree with you or not is irrelevant. You have said stick to the facts so please provide the facts/evidence underpinning your statements below:

1. Post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being
2. A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being
3. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’

[JudyHon]

Sir, are you aware of the basic tenets of life are? Additionally, I refer to extant literature and you respond by saying you have looked at a dictionary.

I understand why you might believe that particular legislation was cherry-picked. Actually, I came across it by accident but it was relevant so it was included. I'm sure you appreciate my position is clearly not based upon that 1 piece of legislation. There are other references to be found; I just dont have the time to pull them out. That you do not think an unborn baby is a human is beyond words and takes you into a realm of incredulity.

I've stated some of my experience and alluded to my expertise. If you believe others without both of these determinants have no right to comment, why are you doing so? It appears as though in your haste to be part of a discussion you've again tripped over your own exuberance.

The bottom line is that you speak of facts without emotion, religion and emotional bias, yet have presented no facts. Whether 100 people agree with you or not is irrelevant. You have said stick to the facts so please provide the facts/evidence underpinning your statements below:

1. Post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being
2. A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being
3. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’

Honestly, there is no need to call me Sir. I know my posts are compelling, but such reverence is excessive. Unless you are being facetious which seems a rather unchristian trait.

I am not limiting my expertise to the Dictionary. Actually, I do have some expertise in the field of biology, but don’t wish to crow about it. Referring to objective definitions to correct obvious misnomers seemed like a reasonable place to start however. I think your experience and expertise count for little as you have never had to take a decision on abortion. I have already indicated the single group whose experience puts them above the rest of us in such a discussion.

I know enough about the issue to be aware that there are myriad theories about when life starts, and no single biological ‘truth’ all accept. None is provable, and people more knowledgeable than you and I cannot agree on a specific ‘moment’. Some argue that life does not begin at all – it is a continuous cycle or continuum – hence my reference to sperm and ovum.

I don’t recall saying an unborn baby is not human. I stand by my assertion that a fertilised egg is not a human being. That there is a difference seems obvious to me and a great many people. Very few people (at least in the UK) equate the two and to say they are the same thing seems to me a fundamentally incredible statement.

Frankly I could argue the toss over this one until doomsday, but what is the point. We are going round in circles already, and life’s too short.

I would however, say that you do seem to have a bad case of double standards. When the discussion was on religion, you emphasised the need to respect believers views when I used the terms ‘brain-washing’, ‘fairy tales’ and ‘irrelevant’ in association with organised religion. But now you wade into this discussion banding around terms such as ‘preposterous, pathetic, myopic, naïve’ to other equally valid dissenting views. You do your argument no favours using such pejorative terms.

Perhaps your religious views are inherently more deserving of respect? Or maybe just your views? I suggest I am not the only one who could be accused of ‘tripping over their exuberance’ whatever that means. Everyone is entitled to express their views here.

Thanks. That’s my lot. Enjoy chasing your tails…

[adam&chryss]

I beleive the thread is "is it a sin? "
Also I beleive if the lady in question wanted facts then i`m sure she could Google the answers like anyone else.
I thought she`d like some advice from people that have been in the situation of expecting a child as part of a family.
How could anyone give advice on any subject if they havnt remotely experienced it?
I can remember my wife telling me she was pregnant and how happy we were.
As far as i`m concerned thats when the life of my son began and you can quote any facts you want, they mean nothing to me.
So, Is It A Sin? I guess you`ll have to beleive in god to judge that.

[Piamed]

[QUOTE=David House;138177]

To describe those on the other side of this debate as "pro-abortionists" is inaccurate and as emotionally charged as much of what is said by the "pro-life" lobby. No-one is, I believe, "pro-abortion". The argument is not really about whether you are in favour of abortion, only whether it can ever be acceptable. For some it is, for others it cannot be in any circumstances.
It is the same about trying to define "life". For some, me included, "human life" does not truly exist unless, and until, a baby draws it's first unaided breath. Until then it is an extension of it's mother and totally dependent upon her. Her life exists, but not a new independent one. Others have an alternative view but how far back do you want to go as "life" exists at many levels. In my view the debate needs to concentrate upon when a "human" exists, and that surely cannot be at the moment of conception. The distinction may be a fine line but it is a very important one in an ethical debate. Those who would put women at risk by denying them the opportunity to have a safe abortion, when no other reasonable option is available, have a lot to answer for. This is an imperfect world. Poor people, with too many mouths to feed, may be driven into the hands of dangerous back street abortionists. Practical solutions are required not theoretical concepts.

I don't believe calling those in favour of abortions in any variety of contexts, pro-abortionists is at all incorrect. From many of the postings it is clear that some are generally against abortions as options - anti-abortionists, and there are those who are in favour of abortions as options - pro-abortionists. Pro-life and and pro-choice are not substitutable terms in my view, as to my mind they are used inconsistently across the various forumers.

I do not believe the term pro-abortion is any more emotionally charged than the term pro-choice when used as an inappropriate antithesis to pro-life or anti-abortion.

The cardinal signs are demonstrated by the growing entity within the womb and thus according to biological principles it is living. It appears that biogy suited so many when used in contexts opposing religious ideology but is inappropriate now.

Anyway, I've said my peace.

Honestly, there is no need to call me Sir. I know my posts are compelling, but such reverence is excessive. Unless you are being facetious which seems a rather unchristian trait.

I am not limiting my expertise to the Dictionary. Actually, I do have some expertise in the field of biology, but don’t wish to crow about it. Referring to objective definitions to correct obvious misnomers seemed like a reasonable place to start however. I think your experience and expertise count for little as you have never had to take a decision on abortion. I have already indicated the single group whose experience puts them above the rest of us in such a discussion.

I know enough about the issue to be aware that there are myriad theories about when life starts, and no single biological ‘truth’ all accept. None is provable, and people more knowledgeable than you and I cannot agree on a specific ‘moment’. Some argue that life does not begin at all – it is a continuous cycle or continuum – hence my reference to sperm and ovum.

I don’t recall saying an unborn baby is not human. I stand by my assertion that a fertilised egg is not a human being. That there is a difference seems obvious to me and a great many people. Very few people (at least in the UK) equate the two and to say they are the same thing seems to me a fundamentally incredible statement.

Frankly I could argue the toss over this one until doomsday, but what is the point. We are going round in circles already, and life’s too short.

I would however, say that you do seem to have a bad case of double standards. When the discussion was on religion, you emphasised the need to respect believers views when I used the terms ‘brain-washing’, ‘fairy tales’ and ‘irrelevant’ in association with organised religion. But now you wade into this discussion banding around terms such as ‘preposterous, pathetic, myopic, naïve’ to other equally valid dissenting views. You do your argument no favours using such pejorative terms.

Perhaps your religious views are inherently more deserving of respect? Or maybe just your views? I suggest I am not the only one who could be accused of ‘tripping over their exuberance’ whatever that means. Everyone is entitled to express their views here.

Thanks. That’s my lot. Enjoy chasing your tails…

Sir, I do find much in your postings compelling. Btw, your statement that I have never had to make a decision is related to abortion false as you do not know what I've had to do. You categorised expertise and experience as being key criteria, stated you have expertise and minimised my own even though you have no idea what mine is That's not nice is it? As you know, there is absolutely nothing in life universally accepted. That's a given. We are clearly polarised on what you believe is an issue relating to the unborn being human beings. Sobeit.

Preposterous: Contrary to nature
Pathetic: Evoking sympathy (I don't recall saying that but assume you are correct that I did)
Myopic: Limited perspective
Naive: lack a critical examination


Saying that I believe that some your statements fell into the above does not disrespect you in my view. nor does it harm the essential you and further it does not pour scorn on any of your ideologies. Are you really suggesting I perjured myself? Come, come now!

Everyone is entitled to express their views as many have done! Nothing wrong with exuberance but it can lead to premature enthusiasm. Peace.

I've been travelling, am tired, hungry and want to go and kiss my wife and marvel at the new things Marikit is doing. Today she has learned to coordinate her arms so she can reach out and grab the teddy bears on the mobile. That takes precedence.

Wish you all the best, I shall gracefully retire from this thread. All the best to you out there.

[JudyHon]

Sir, I do find much in your postings compelling. Btw, your statement that I have never had to make a decision is related to abortion false as you do not know what I've had to do. You categorised expertise and experience as being key criteria, stated you have expertise and minimised my own even though you have no idea what mine is That's not nice is it? As you know, there is absolutely nothing in life universally accepted. That's a given. We are clearly polarised on what you believe is an issue relating to the unborn being human beings. Sobeit.

Preposterous: Contrary to nature
Pathetic: Evoking sympathy (I don't recall saying that but assume you are correct that I did)
Myopic: Limited perspective
Naive: lack a critical examination


Saying that I believe that some your statements fell into the above does not disrespect you in my view. nor does it harm the essential you and further it does not pour scorn on any of your ideologies. Are you really suggesting I perjured myself? Come, come now!

Everyone is entitled to express their views as many have done! Nothing wrong with exuberance but it can lead to premature enthusiasm. Peace.

I've been travelling, am tired, hungry and want to go and kiss my wife and marvel at the new things Marikit is doing. Today she has learned to coordinate her arms so she can reach out and grab the teddy bears on the mobile. That takes precedence.

Wish you all the best, I shall gracefully retire from this thread. All the best to you out there.

Sir,
Unless you have a uterus that you weren't letting on, you couldn't personally have had to take the decision I was refering to. I was talking in an earlier post about a pregnant woman who finds herself facing this decision, and the resulting experience that she would bring to a discussion. In some fields expertise may be a basis for advice, but I don't think is one of them.

Three of the four negative terms were not actually directed at my posts, but either other people's (who happened to have opinions that it is the individual's choice) and a 'pathetic' quality of the pro-choice view itself. But good to know they can be applied to all dissenters.

I don't believe I referred to perjuring at all.