Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Thou shalt murder



dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
I don't think people are "for abortion" they are "for a woman's right to choose". The lines are 'pro-choice' or 'anti-abortion'.

You are right, I should have said

"I don't think people should be labelled whatever they believe on this subject, people who are against abortion are not anti-women and people who are not against abortion are not anti-life."

I think pro-choice and anti-abortion are just as unhelpful because it implies an anti-choice and pro-abortion position aswell.
 




Seagull kimchi

New member
Oct 8, 2010
4,007
Korea and India
Once again - Is it correct to label all of the women who have chosen to abort as 'murderers' without knowing one single thing about the circumstances of their difficult decision? The 'Crusades' is also an inflammatory word just like 'abortion' can be. None of us are truly innocent.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
I think pro-choice and anti-abortion are just as unhelpful because it implies an anti-choice and pro-abortion position aswell.

But "people who are not against abortion" implies either indifference - which is not true, or that they are 'for' abortion.

The issue with abortion comes down to whether you view the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby as an individual and with a right to life that supersedes its host/mother's right to control her own body, or if the woman's right to control her own body supersedes that of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby to live.

I realise now I mis-typed in my last post. I meant it is pro-choice or pro-life. Those are the labels people use to define themselves, not what are being given to them. Due to the lines in this debate, however you define yourself can be twisted to the other side. If you are against abortion you are inherenty against a woman's right to choose, or the right to proper heath care rather than a back alley "doctor". If you are 'not against abortion' you are either indifferent or 'for abortion'. You are in favour of allowing women to decide to kill off a zygote/embryo/fetus.

What we need (whenever this topic is debated) is for each side to respect how the other defines their position, i.e. for the pro-lifers not to label the others as 'anti-life' or 'pro-choicers' not to label the others 'anti-choice'
 
Last edited:


What we need acker is for the anti-abortionists to shut the f*** up and accept that they have no right to force their viewpoints on women. When they do that I will quite happily respect their position. It's not their opposition to abortion I have an issue with, it's their attempts to force their bigoted imaginary friend inspired views on others.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
What we need acker is for the anti-abortionists to shut the f*** up and accept that they have no right to force their viewpoints on women. When they do that I will quite happily respect their position. It's not their opposition to abortion I have an issue with, it's their attempts to force their bigoted imaginary friend inspired views on others.

I have edited my post to clarify I mean when discussing the topic.
 




Falkor

Banned
Jun 3, 2011
5,673
Can i just ask something why is it the womens choice and not a joint one. I understand the women carrys the child but it also takes 2 to get pregnant surely the father should have some say. Even if they are not together.

Just feel the whole its a women right thing one sided when it takes 2 to make the egg.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
Can i just ask something why is it the womens choice and not a joint one. I understand the women carrys the child but it also takes 2 to get pregnant surely the father should have some say. Even if they are not together.

Just feel the whole its a women right thing one sided when it takes 2 to make the egg.

It only takes one to make an egg. It takes two to fertilise it. Then one to implant it in her womb, that same one to share her blood, nutrients, air, risk her health, play host to a growing foreign mass, while living with a hormone imbalance, becoming vulnerable to a whole host of dangers (including, but not limited to lack of mobility to avoid external dangers, problems with pregnancies and child birth etc).

It's also only one person that has the abortion and has to go through the physical act.

The rights of this is one-sided because the development (and potential abortion) of a baby/fetus is one-sided.
 
Last edited:


black & white seagull

Active member
Aug 29, 2003
460
Brighton
I find the whole 'what about rape' argument a bit of a distraction. What if the woman used a condom, it split, so she took the morning-after pill, and that failed, too. Those are the actions of a responsible woman, who clearly doesn't want to get pregnant, has taken steps to ensure she doesn't get pregnant, and yet she has. Should abortion be unavailable to her, because she wasn't raped? It is impossible to blur the lines.

Also, don't get too bogged down in the idea that it's a traumatic decision. For many women, particularly the sort of woman in my example above, it requires very little consideration. They know it is absolutely not the right time for them to bring a child into the world, end of story. They don't need counselling, what they need is to not have to jump through hoops, obtaining 'permission' from two doctors and then waiting weeks to get an appointment with the NHS.

As Caitlin Moran said in her book, How to be a Woman, it took her longer to choose a kitchen work surface than it did to decide whether she wanted an abortion. Some of you may not like it, but that's the case for an awful lot of women who find themselves in this position.
 




topbanana36

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2007
1,758
New Zealand
Seond post ever, blimey readingstockport, your knowledge of the most read and bought fairy tale in all of humanity is outstanding, gonna ask my mates down the pub about elisha tonight and see what they say. Just a thought no more no less.
 


Lady Gull

New member
Aug 6, 2011
3,884
West sussex
I find the whole 'what about rape' argument a bit of a distraction. What if the woman used a condom, it split, so she took the morning-after pill, and that failed, too. Those are the actions of a responsible woman, who clearly doesn't want to get pregnant, has taken steps to ensure she doesn't get pregnant, and yet she has. Should abortion be unavailable to her, because she wasn't raped? It is impossible to blur the lines.

Also, don't get too bogged down in the idea that it's a traumatic decision. For many women, particularly the sort of woman in my example above, it requires very little consideration. They know it is absolutely not the right time for them to bring a child into the world, end of story. They don't need counselling, what they need is to not have to jump through hoops, obtaining 'permission' from two doctors and then waiting weeks to get an appointment with the NHS.

As Caitlin Moran said in her book, How to be a Woman, it took her longer to choose a kitchen work surface than it did to decide whether she wanted an abortion. Some of you may not like it, but that's the case for an awful lot of women who find themselves in this position.


So true - my sister in law found herself in this position about 8 years ago - she was in her second year of Uni was with a guy and found herself pregnant - she was on the pill but had been sick - she rang me up in a right paddy and said she wanted rid - she had absolutely made her mind up and she hadn't rung up for advice - she had rung up for help with the logistics of getting there, getting picked up and to finance it!

it was completely the wrong time for her. It was sorted - very early on. She finished her degree - finished with the guy and now is a manager of a big store - she has now met a guy and they have just bought their first house together. She never ever speaks about it and nor do we - we kept it quiet from her mum and to this day no one in the family knows.

She is still adamant that she doesn't want any children and that is her choice.
 


Seond post ever, blimey readingstockport, your knowledge of the most read and bought fairy tale in all of humanity is outstanding, gonna ask my mates down the pub about elisha tonight and see what they say. Just a thought no more no less.

Actually mr Topbanana. in a study be the Pew forum it was found that atheists consisstently outscore all religions on their knowledge of the various faiths.

U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey - Pew Research Center

Religious IQ: Why do atheists outscore Christians? - The Week


The truth is most religious people do not really know what their fantasy book says, they read what liars like ken ham or kent hovind say and accept it or instead accept the lies of organisations like cmi or anserws in genesis. I try to educate myself in order to shine the bright light of intelligence into the darkest recesses of their ignorance.

Feel free to take the cut down version of the test and see how well you score.

U.S. Religious Knowledge Quiz
 
Last edited:




Brovion

In my defence, I was left unsupervised.
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,867
What we need acker is for the anti-abortionists to shut the f*** up and accept that they have no right to force their viewpoints on women. When they do that I will quite happily respect their position. It's not their opposition to abortion I have an issue with, it's their attempts to force their bigoted imaginary friend inspired views on others.
That's a fair view and I accept it. Personally I make no apology for the fact that I am opposed to the concept of abortion (rather than being 'anti-abortion'), however I would NEVER like to see it banned as that wouldn't mean the end of it, it would simply go back to being a messy, evil backstreet affair. I'd just rather no one had them.

I was a lot more blase about it when I was younger, I definitely remember saying "it's a woman's right to choose". Then I saw my daughter for the first time on ultrasound. This was at the stage when she was 'just a foetus', just a clump of cells, incapable of surviving outside her mother's womb and well within the legal limit for termination. However she had a little heart that was beating away the same as yours or mine. My opinion changed instantly.

No, legally abortion is NOT murder. Morally? Well I'm not too sure ...

(This will be my only post on this thread as it is an emotive subject).
 


Falkor

Banned
Jun 3, 2011
5,673
It only takes one to make an egg. It takes two to fertilise it. Then one to implant it in her womb, that same one to share her blood, nutrients, air, risk her health, play host to a growing foreign mass, while living with a hormone imbalance, becoming vulnerable to a whole host of dangers (including, but not limited to lack of mobility to avoid external dangers, problems with pregnancies and child birth etc).

It's also only one person that has the abortion and has to go through the physical act.

The rights of this is one-sided because the development (and potential abortion) of a baby/fetus is one-sided.

Yeah i see your point.

With these adverts though, i feel it will encourage people to be more loose in a sense, another worry for me is that this is a company wanting to make a profit, if ya went to the NHS they would speak to you as and give you options and advice, with these companies there not going to give the same advice i don't believe, there going to be looking at making profit and money so are going to side with the abortion side of things, women can often feel awful after these things, are they also offering counselling etc.... for people that might feel upset after.
 






dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
But "people who are not against abortion" implies either indifference - which is not true, or that they are 'for' abortion.

The issue with abortion comes down to whether you view the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby as an individual and with a right to life that supersedes its host/mother's right to control her own body, or if the woman's right to control her own body supersedes that of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby to live.

I realise now I mis-typed in my last post. I meant it is pro-choice or pro-life. Those are the labels people use to define themselves, not what are being given to them. Due to the lines in this debate, however you define yourself can be twisted to the other side. If you are against abortion you are inherenty against a woman's right to choose, or the right to proper heath care rather than a back alley "doctor". If you are 'not against abortion' you are either indifferent or 'for abortion'. You are in favour of allowing women to decide to kill off a zygote/embryo/fetus.

What we need (whenever this topic is debated) is for each side to respect how the other defines their position, i.e. for the pro-lifers not to label the others as 'anti-life' or 'pro-choicers' not to label the others 'anti-choice'

Yes, good summary.

Although the issue becomes problematic because, if you take the view that zygote/embryo/fetus/baby is a human life, then it deserves and has a right to protection under the law.
 


dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
That's a fair view and I accept it. Personally I make no apology for the fact that I am opposed to the concept of abortion (rather than being 'anti-abortion'), however I would NEVER like to see it banned as that wouldn't mean the end of it, it would simply go back to being a messy, evil backstreet affair. I'd just rather no one had them.

I was a lot more blase about it when I was younger, I definitely remember saying "it's a woman's right to choose". Then I saw my daughter for the first time on ultrasound. This was at the stage when she was 'just a foetus', just a clump of cells, incapable of surviving outside her mother's womb and well within the legal limit for termination. However she had a little heart that was beating away the same as yours or mine. My opinion changed instantly.

No, legally abortion is NOT murder. Morally? Well I'm not too sure ...

(This will be my only post on this thread as it is an emotive subject).

Good post, and the bolded bit is a really important point. The law reflects the morality of the people, its peoples hearts and minds that have to change if we are to see a society in which people don't choose to have abortions.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,019
With these adverts though, i feel it will encourage people to be more loose in a sense,...

woah there, have you seen these adverts? no, of course not because they are allowed until 30th April. you have no idea that will even advertise, let alone how they will market their service. this isnt about marketing a product but informing people that there is an alternative service provider, most people would default to their GP for such matters but for many they might see the family GP as someone they cant go to. there are alternatives, this will allow them to be known to a broader population. for most, the decision will already be half made.
 


e77

Well-known member
May 23, 2004
7,270
Worthing
OK I can accept you definition of murder at a stretch as the argument for "after birth " is as spurious as arguments for slavery in the 1700s "Well its always been that way etc etc".

But wouldn't preventing a woman whos life was in danger from terminating a life be also a deliberate act of murder?

Why do you fall back on hocus pocus scripture that hates women? Mind you the modern view hates men instead. Why not support the Equal right to choose rather than womens privelege? It would reduce the number of "murders" and be more egalirarian, you could make amendments for quirks like the example I gave.

Medicine has advanced on a massive scale since your Biblical book of fairy tales was written, so why not take a more measured approach than an absolutist stance based on what someone thought over 2000 odd years ago.

I fully agree with that.

Just off to make a note of the date and time.
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here