Is it a sin??????

[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.