The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The abortion conundrum > Comments

The abortion conundrum : Comments

By Brian Holden, published 18/5/2007

Pro-choice advocates must remain eternally vigilant.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 52
  7. 53
  8. 54
  9. Page 55
  10. 56
  11. 57
  12. All
Yvonne, if I implied that your reading skills were a little deficient, I clearly misjudged you. They are abysmal. You rant irrationally about my comments, but they weren't directed at you. What a dill! Only the first two lines of my post were addressed to you - the rest was addressed to Celivia, not you. Look carefully at the beginning of the third line, and you can see her name quite clearly. Get somebody to point it out for you if you have difficulty - it's that word which begins with a capital 'C'. I hope I'm not overestimating your ability.
Posted by Peter D, Monday, 18 June 2007 6:21:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The following link could be interesting:

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/abortion/index.htm

I also have to support Aqvarivs. He has always declared from which viewpoint he is coming from. Nevertheless, I’ve found him to be in support of women. He has declared himself to be pro-choice. Obviously, he wouldn’t ‘make use’ of abortion, but he acknowledges that others should be able to.

He does like to bait and stir the pot. I’ve fallen for this a number of times.

Danielle, what a journey did you go through! My experience with the Catholic Church is that very much has changed, especially in the last 20 years or so. You’re story sounds like you had to deal with somebody still stuck in pre Vatican II thinking.

The Church still is philosophically stuck with Paul’s influence. JC never made unequivocal statements about women. It’s all a matter of interpreting his actions.

It is legitimate for anyone to question the number of abortions and could any have been avoided (before pregnancy occurred).

In other countries it has been demonstrated that, though legal, abortions numbers can be reduced. Ideally, it should not be used as a method of birth control. As I said before, from my viewpoint, not because of ethical reasons, but because it is a surgical procedure, with possible serious side effects best avoided.

It is men like MickV, PeterD and Daniel06 who concern me most. There is no acknowledgement from them that men have any role to play in contraception. Daniel’s opinion was if a woman opens her legs and she falls pregnant she should lie in the bed she made and carry through with the pregnancy. If she didn’t she should ‘keep her legs closed’.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they are also the ones who scream the loudest about child maintenance and about being ‘tricked’ by some conniving woman busting to have a baby with them!
Posted by yvonne, Monday, 18 June 2007 7:14:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarivs “so your opinion is valid and everyone else can bugger off.”

Your rhetoric does not advance your view. I suggest you desist from all the negative bluster and bombast. As for lies, you have caught me in none, give it a rest, you are becoming boring.

As for “As a society we can not afford to become complacent, especially on the subject of terminating life.”

And we can never become complacent in the matter of social dictatorship. The Anti-Abortionist demand their “will” must prevail in a matter which is between a woman, her body and her doctor. Abortion, despite the view of the Catholics, the Pope, Pells and the anti-abortion lobby, is a private matter and none of their business.

The alternative is a medieval dictatorial with expectation that women are merely vessels for procreation and the deliverers of (likely male) heirs.

I for one, am well past such primitive notions. That the Catholic Church, anti-abortionist, people like yourself and raving loons, like PeterD, do not accept that private individuals are private individuals and not required to comply with your expectations is your problem to deal with in whatever manner you choose (your choice).

For myself, I believe people are free to decide and live with the consequences of their decision. That some might regret exercising their choice is too bad. Better they regret the choice they made and grow through that understanding; than regret the choice you and the other anti-abortionist wish to impose upon them and simply grow bitter.

MickV all the poetry in the world will make no difference. It is merely your attempt to use emotion to subvert logic. I might have read the “rhyme of the ancient mariner” but I am buggered if I would use it to form any reasoned decision affecting my future, although it does illustrate how the mariner was forced to live with the consequences of his actions.

Danielle God endowed man with freewill. Real Christians recognise and respect this but such notions conflict with Pell’s dictates and the demands of the Church of Rome..
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 11:52:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jews are not human beings, they have no rights. (Hitler)

Women are inferior and have no rights. (Taliban)

Unborn babies are not human beings, they have no rights. (Celivia)

Blacks are sub-human, they have no rights. (Slave owners)

Aborigines are not really human, they can be killed. (Various)

The politics of power: If I'm bigger and stronger than you, I can take your rights away, I can define you out of existence.

Celivia, I don't really believe you are as thick as Yvonne, though you pretend to be. It's dishonesty, more than stupidity, and that is far worse. Like an arsonist with a box of matches, you start fires just to create a diversion. You pretend not to understand anything you can't answer, or deliberately falsify the other person's argument.
Your latest crop of unadulterated verbal garbage puts you on a par with Col Rouge. It's almost amusing, the vast quantities of pompous, dogmatic drivel you denouncers of dogmatism churn out
Posted by Peter D, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 9:23:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia, you ask,
“If you believe that zygotes and embryos are human beings, then why should human beings have the right to live inside other human beings without their permission?”

Interesting question, to say the least. I could explain about the birds and the bees but I would presume you already know. The majority of pregnancies arise from couples agreeably having sex. Most of them are aware of this beforehand.

You mentioned fairy tales, Noah’s ark and resurrections.

In a world of mystery, where even the most knowledgeable have yet to figure out all the answers, we are prone to cling to faith or fairy tales. However, one person’s reasonable belief is another person’s fairy tale. (That’s why we discuss things on OLO).

If I could give my defense of these two:

Firstly, the flood of Noah. If such a world wide flood were true, what evidence would I expect to see? Such a cataclysm would stir great torrents of mud trapping billions of dead plants and animals, which would later harden and be found as fossils in stratified sedimentary rock. I look around and what do I see? I also might expect that memories might be retained by the descendents of the survivors. In fact, legends of a great flood and how their ancestors survived it are found in many cultures on every continent.

Secondly, if a man claiming to be the world’s Saviour and Judge, was executed and then resurrected, all according to his own prediction, what repercussions would I reasonably expect to follow. I would expect that the first witnesses of the resurrection would do all to publicly proclaim such a tremendous event, never denying it even on punishment of death. I would expect that important books would be written about the event and published in every known language. I expect that millions of lives would be transformed for the better by the profound implications and the spirit within such an event.

Do I see such things and others? I do, and they are consistent with the event occurring, enough to satisfy a rational mind.
Posted by Mick V, Wednesday, 20 June 2007 7:11:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Firstly, the flood of Noah. If such a world wide flood were true, what evidence would I expect to see?"

Mick, if such a worldwide flood were true, I would certainly
not expect freshwater fish species to survive. Unless of course
old Noah had lots of little aquariums with oxygen pumps onboard :)
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 20 June 2007 2:12:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 52
  7. 53
  8. 54
  9. Page 55
  10. 56
  11. 57
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy