UK woman convicted of abortion

[Veterinari]

Full story here www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/woman-given-suspended-sentence-for-having-abortion-in-the-uk-a6968676.html

Very sad. Is there a will in NI to update legislation on this issue? As it stands everyone loses

I've already said that not all pro lifers are full of bile and hatred.

I'm actually considerably more towards the 'pro life' end of the spectrum than many people. I hate the idea of a woman feeling pressurised into having an abortion by someone else.

I persist with church going because I feel I have no choice. I've been taught my whole life that there is nothing more evil than turning your back on God. So I try to live my life in a way that fits.

But I can not ignore the fact that the apparently I am more or less worthless because I am female. That my pain or anguish, physical or mental, don't actually matter. That my role is of incubator.

I didn't see your last post, treacle. When you were dismissing the church's teaching on abortion up thread, I got the impression that you were justifying it by pointing out that the church got lots of things wrong and was a dreadful institution in many ways, the 'abortion is wrong' teaching being only one example. But what if the strands of church that you actually respect are teaching- not bullying just teaching-that while the church has every moral obligation to show living support, abortion is a transgression?

Loving support

Treacle that sounds like a conflicted, constricting, rage-inducing way to live in which you have the worst of both worlds and precious little revelation of any loving God that might make the church's cock-ups bearable. It's supposed to be about recognising and cherishing individual worth, not reducing anyone to an anonymous incubator. I hope you find a different way to live.

gone you're right about that much. It is conflicted and it is pretty miserable. I don't feel I can ever turn my back on my upbringing but I can't say that believing in God brings me any comfort. Quite the opposite.

I'm so sorry treacle, my own faith has gone through numerous reinventions as a result of bad experiences growing up as a pastor's child. So much of institutional church needs to change. A couple of books were helpful to me when I was deciding whether to bother going on. 'How my faith survived the church' and 'What's so amazing about grace', both by Philip Yancey, have you come across them? I'm aware that the tone of the thread doesn't lend itself to book recommendations but it's hard to think of anyone being in such a difficult position indefinitely.

Thank you gone that's very kind of you.

That sounded sarcastic and it wasn't meant to be. I appreciate you taking the time to recommend books.

It's ok treacle, I was prepared for a slap in the face! (which I know wasn't what you were doing). I really do wish you every good thing for your life, with utmost sincerity.

It really is not surprising that the Bible doesn't mention bodily autonomy. Why would it, given the period over which it was written? It is all the more reason not to live your life by it.

What if it really is a conscience issue?

If that really is the case why force your conscience upon others? Are christians not allowed free will?

Yes, Christians believe we have free will to choose to do what is right. Choosing to do what is wrong would be destructive and a false freedom.

As for forcing my conscience upon others, it depends what you mean. I think abortion must be legal because look at the alternative - more death. So in practical terms I'm not forcing that at all (though I might if illegal abortion wasn't potentially harmful to women).

There are some practices that a believer in any faith will observe for themselves only - like not eating certain foods. There are other practices that they believe (and this is on a spectrum) should apply to others as well because the alternative behaviour is morally wrong and harmful, either to the people involved or others.

Most of us have moral beliefs about how other people should use their bodies, and these are reflected in the laws we hold. I don't support your right to sell your kidney, to sell yourself into slavery of any kind, to inject yourself with harmful substances, or to supply them to others. I think absolute bodily autonomy is not widely supported by pro-choicers either, as the reaction to Sarah Catt's full-term abortion showed (although, despicably, the moral position tends to be completely different for Down's Syndrome, which is, far far removed from the kind of condition offering 'no quality of life' that is used to justify this principle in theory).

So I don't think many of us are completely happy for everyone to do what they want with their own bodies - at some point, we start to interfere, or we think the state should.

Christians, like believers of other faiths and many responsible members of society, care about the behaviour of others when they perceive it to be harming others in society. It's important that someone does give a damn in this way, because we are not just individuals, but a community with a collective sense of morality. We all want to have a voice in defining what we allow and don't allow. We have to have it - look at the occasions in history when people haven't challenged commonly held views that were clearly harming others. To some extent I think we all agree that 'evil flourishes when good men do nothing' - as would be shown if selling our kidneys became legal today. Christians aren't particularly interfering or unusual in principle I don't think.

However I would add the caveat that a Christian on the look-out for signs of 'evil flourishing' should be looking for an absence of compassion in their own behaviour and attitudes before considering wrongdoing elsewhere. That's the primary evil we are told to avoid.

Christians believe we have free will to choose to do what is right... what is wrong would be destructive and a false freedom - What? are you saying you are only allowed to choose the correct choice? And who decides what the correct choice is?

Gone, a few points which I've made already but have either been missed or ignored.

"There are other practices that they believe (and this is on a spectrum) should apply to others as well because the alternative behaviour is morally wrong and harmful, either to the people involved or others."

The huge failing in Christianity, and also in other religions, is a complete and utter failure to apply any logic or objective thought to what is and isn't morally right or harmful. Instead, you rely totally on the dogmatic view set out in the religious texts. So doctrines and rules made in a time of total ignorance and lack of medical insight are still adhered to even when it is proven that these cause considerable harm and go against every modern definition of morality. Abortion in the case of FFA is a prime example of this, and I'm afraid it demonstrates a complete absence of morality in favour of a blind adherence to arbitrary rules.

"Christians aren't particularly interfering"
Eh? Do you want to come and stand outside the local Marie Stopes for an afternoon and see how interfering christians are?

A christian on the look-out for signs of 'evil flourishing' should be looking for an absence of compassion in their own behaviour and attitudes before considering wrongdoing elsewhere. - In English that seem to mean: if a person deems themselves compassionate they are able to label pregnant women exercising freedom of choice over their own body as 'evil flourishing' and they should be punished with imprisonment.

Considering that I have spent a lot of this thread arguing with gone this is probably going to seem like a complete turnaround but...I actually read her post in the opposite way. I thought she meant that before Christian's talk about stopping evil flourishing, they should be looking at their own actions, in as much as if they are acting without compassion then they are in no position to criticise. I thought that was what she meant anyway.

spare I did read your points earlier, sorry. I don't know where to start with them because we're coming from such different viewpoints. First minor point to get out of the way - please don't take my words out of context. Yes, Christians are interfering outside the clinic but are they more interfering in principle? No, there would be plenty of people campaigning outside stormont etc. if selling kidneys became legal tomorrow. My points was, Christians are not particularly unusual in having views about what should be legal for the nation as a whole. But it's not a major point.

I wouldn't choose the word 'arbitrary' to describe my belief system. You think Christianity morality is out of date and no longer relevant? And Christians are suspending logic and personal morality to believe in a system of right and wrong that makes no sense and hurts other people, have I got that right? If that's what you're saying, I'm not sure what you want me to do. If I try to put forward an alternative view, you'll only repeat that it all makes no sense. Is that what you want to do? I don't mind giving it a whirl, but I'm not sure you've thought through how this is going to go. Is there a specific angle you want to hear a defence for? I will say this: I don't think you know a great deal about the Christian faith. There isn't actually a dogmatic view on abortion laid out in the religious texts, and what dogmatic views there are tend to be along the lines of respecting life. I've seen a Biblical case made for choice, though it seemed stretched to me. I don't think modern morality necessarily has the edge on many aspects of more traditional morality (as evidenced by humanity's ongoing failure to get it more right as time goes on), and I certainly don't retract my comments about Down's Syndrome or agree that secular thought is a bastion of objective, rational reasoning.

urban Wasn't aware of anyone being imprisoned. But yes, in a sense I agree. We are told that when Christ came upon someone sinning, he 'looked at them and loved them'. That was the first response. The second was to end the sin.

Yes, free will is a nuanced position. Christians believe that individuals are given freedom of choice, but not all choices will lead to good outcomes. Eg. If you're a dick and cheat on your partner you'll probably end up alone. You had the free will to make that choice, but it didn't come with a magic wand to change that outcome. This goes further than a 'do good and good things will happen to you' logic (which doesn't, of course, work every time); Christians believe we are all here ultimately to walk in Christ's footsteps, with the same kindness and integrity. So while you're free to make the choices, you're making them within a world that works according to certain principles and the choices will have certain consequences. Not very different from secular thought in some ways.

very Please tell me you're being ironic...

Yes, free will is a nuanced position. Christians believe that individuals are given freedom of choice, but not all choices will lead to good outcomes. Eg. If you're a dick and cheat on your partner you'll probably end up alone

If only that were true.

So while you're free to make the choices, you're making them within a world that works according to certain principles and the choices will have certain consequences

But your example demonstrate that that isn't necessarily the case.

And I'm not clear how that principle operates in relation to abortion?

treaclesoda, it is hard interpreting what christian posters mean because they just don't say what they mean, it's all cloaked in ambiguous language. I do agree with your translation of gone's comment, but she didn't say they can't act to stop evil flourishing, just that they have to consider if they are acting compassionately first. Implying once that is done, they are free to go right ahead and condemn anyone they want. And who decides if they are acting compassionately? I would bet quite a lot of money that all those anti-abortionists in NI would all say they are acting compassionately.

gone, The woman in the story was given a suspended prison sentence. Meaning that she could go to prison because of this, depending on various conditions being met. So does your comment mean that you are against prison for abortion and it should just be a civil offence, or no offence at all?

When christ came upon someone sinning, he... loved them... then ended the sin., In English that seem to mean, we should love woman but stop them from having the free will to have an abortion by punishing them. Should the woman in question feel loved or feel punished?

free will is a nuanced position, No it isnt, either you have it or you don't. Once you try and add nuances then you don't have free will anymore. What you described is a personal consequence of making a choice. What religious anti-abortionist in NI are doing is creating criminal sanctions to stop anyone being able to make that choice.

So in plain English gone are you a) against abortion but respect the free will of others to make that choice themselves, or b) against abortion and in favour of forcing your will onto other people and stopping them from having an abortion?

very It was passive aggressive so don't bother resorting to it, that ship has sailed. I'm not interested in arguing about who does nuanced thinking better, though I don't think you're demonstrating it terribly well. Nor am I interested in tit for tat, so I'm not going to engage. If you have a point to make, make it with your own words, off your own bat.