Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Should the Political process be allowed to involve, and advocate, religious beliefs? 2


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 33 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 15 Nov 2012 20:09:02 GMT
Charlieost says:
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/-17-week-pregnant-woman-dies-in-Irish-hospital-after-doctors-refuse-termination-179266241.html#axzz2CJpaxk5D

The one of the many consequences.

Posted on 16 Nov 2012 03:43:20 GMT
Party politics IS an organised religion in itself. To the Communists their "sacred prophet" was Karl Marx, their "heaven" a workers utopia on Earth. To the Nazi Fascists their "sacred prophet" was Adolf Hitler, their "heaven" a thousand year Reich. Even the less extreme political parties have their "prophets", "sacred texts", their own ideology on how to achieve a "heaven" or partial "heaven" on Earth.

Party politics is a belief in a certain set of unprovable things. Personal politics, just like individual spirituality is different. No rational, thinking person can honestly say that one political party alone contains every single opinion they hold.

The question you have posed cannot be answered by the scientific method, it has so many variables and interpretations that it would be impossible to give a definitive answer. This is why at the end of the day why politics still exists, it gives us, like religion a certain set of beliefs we can pick and chose from.

My own belief is that I'd like rationality and reason to be at the forefront of politics. Dogmatism, partisanship and closed belief systems destroy rationality in both politics and religion.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Nov 2012 07:59:28 GMT
B. M. Harden says:
By and large I agree with the passage. Religion is, in my own mind, 'the root of all evil' and like politics it exists to give power over populations. It is a rare politician who works for the good of a community without seeking self-agrandissement and similarly clerics do little that can claim to be good. When two religions rub up against each other, the outcome is rarely without bloodshed and politicians of all parties the world over seem keen to acquire or sell armaments to other groups to either appease allies or forment trouble. For me I have no time for either groups.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Nov 2012 09:49:58 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Nov 2012 11:34:18 GMT
Spin says:
Charliost: Why do you assume only and all religious folk are anti-abortion. Do you refuse to acknowledge the existence of an atheist who might object to abortion on moral grounds?

Posted on 16 Nov 2012 14:55:54 GMT
Charlieost says:
There you go again with your assumptions Spin. I have engaged with you on various other other threads and have found that not only do you refuse to accept evidence and personal experience of other posters but you respond with the kind of nonsense I see above me.

I would never put you on ignore Spin but to engage with you is futile so I won't be doing that either.

Have a good weekend. Charlie.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Nov 2012 18:36:50 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Nov 2012 03:57:48 GMT
Spin says:
Charliost: I make no assumptions. You have clearly stated in posts on this thread and another on the Religion Forum that you think catholicism is responsible for the death of a young mother who miscarried. Thus you explicitly assume, at least in your posts, that all catholics are anti-abortion and, more strangely, that modern 21st century Ireland is completely run by the catholic church. You are using your hatred of the church to blame catholics for an unfortunate medical error and using the independent question of the morality of abortion to create a case for the exclusion of religious folk from the political process. These are arguments you explicitly state and which we can all read.. But instead of defending your arguments, you resort to a juvenile snub at my observation. If you start a thread asking questions of such gravity and consequence, you must be prepared to discuss them even with folk who may disagree with you. Otherwise, why bother starting a thread?.

Posted on 17 Nov 2012 02:19:07 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Nov 2012 02:19:48 GMT
Molly Brown says:
"The death in the Republic of Ireland of a woman whose repeated requests for an abortion were turned down - reportedly because "this is a Catholic country" - has sparked international protests and condemnation. In Dublin more than a thousand people staged a demonstration outside the Irish parliament amid calls for an independent inquiry into the death. Savita Halappanavar, a dentist of Indian origin, died in a hospital in Galway city last month from complications when a termination of her pregnancy was delayed after she had been miscarrying for several days. She was 27."

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/dying-wife-refused-abortion-in-republic-told-this-is-a-catholic-country-16238015.html#ixzz2CRS9bzxj

Is the Republic of Ireland, part of the European Union, therefore signed up to the European Human Rights laws, run by the Roman Catholic Church or not? Surely this woman had a right to life, a right which was taken away from her, not, it seems for medical reasons, but by an archaic religious extremist higher authority, i.e. God's representative on earth, The Pope, in Vatican City.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2012 04:05:29 GMT
Spin says:
Molly: Who, exactly, took this womans life from her, as you claim? She asked for an abortion, because she sufferd severe backache, which was rightly efused on the grounds that backache is not sufficient reason to terminate a life. She then later miscarried. This was not a miscarriage induced by anyone, it was a natural occurance and she died of complications due to the misacarriage. No doubt if she survived she wpould not have regretted losing the child since she wanted it terminated. Who, then, denied the right to this woman? Not the doctors, not the child. People who have heart attacks have a "right to life" as well but sometimes nature, (or God, depending on your view) does not care for our abstract ambitions.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2012 13:18:29 GMT
She was 31 according to other things.
Media should really get its facts straight before releasing a dozen varying tales.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2012 19:31:43 GMT
Charlieost says:
Spin. I am ready and willing to discuss any issue pertaining to the thread I have started. I am just not willing to discuss them with you.

When you make wild assertions that are far from the truth about what I think then I do not (particularly in view of similar posts you have made about other people) consider it worthwhile engaging with you.

You are just not worth the bother Spin.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2012 21:00:26 GMT
Spin says:
Charliost: In other words, you are at a loss to reply to a counter-argument.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 09:11:34 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Nov 2012 11:19:02 GMT
Molly Brown says:
"Savita Halappanavar died after being denied a potentially life-saving abortion. She presented with back pain, and was found to be miscarrying. A day of agony later, knowing her pregnancy couldn't survive, she asked for a termination, but was refused. "This is a Catholic country," she was allegedly told.

As long as the foetal heart kept beating doctors would not grant her wish. It beat for three days. Halappanavar vomited, shook and collapsed. On the third day the weak sound faded to nothing and doctors removed the dead foetus. A week after she was first admitted to hospital, Halappanavar died of septicaemia."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/15/ireland-medieval-abortion-law-savita?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

She died of septicaemia and E Coli. She died after three and a half days of excruciating pain. She died after repeatedly begging for an end to the pregnancy that was poisoning her. Her death would have been avoided if she had been given an abortion when she asked for it - when it was clear she was miscarrying, and that non-intervention would put her at risk. But the foetus, which had no chance of survival, still had a heartbeat. Its right to life quite literally trumped hers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/14/savita-halappanavar-medically-unnecessary-death?intcmp=239

If someone presented at hospital with symptoms of a heart attack, would the Doctors wait to see how the symptoms developed without providing treatment to ensure the survival of the patient, "Opus Dei", waiting for nature or God to determine the outcome of whether they live or die?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 09:47:44 GMT
C. A. Small says:
In a catholic country, she might well have been treated by having a man dressed in black walking round her bed, bead juggling, and chanting dirges, whilst the nausiating smell of incense was burned near her bed. The Irish people deserve better than this ridiculous superstitious nonsense trumping medical need.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 10:36:58 GMT
Spin says:
Molly: so one death demands the legalisation of abortion? Abortion as a means to save the mothers life is carried out in every nation, regardless of its law on abortion. To legalise abortion is to make it freely available on request. Abortion should be a decision based on the actual medical circumstances, not a civil liberty. And I am pleased that the Irish government is considering that fact. It sems it will legalise abortion only where life is threatened (unlike in the UK, where abortion is carried out on the recommendation of the doctor).

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 10:49:13 GMT
Pendragon says:
Molly

Agreed this was a terrible and tragic case.

I had thought that (even) in Ireland abortion was permissible in the event that it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Is that not the case?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 10:50:40 GMT
Molly Brown says:
You just posted in another discussion "In the US the right-wing christians have the Republican party by the nuts." Those right wing nuts who oppose a woman's right to an abortion. One of the major reasons I would imagine that Obama was re-elected this November.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 10:53:42 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Nov 2012 10:54:45 GMT
Molly Brown says:
I assume that is why they are holding an investigation into the matter, the alleged Doctor telling this poor young woman, a qualified dentist, that "this is a Catholic Country", and denying her an abortion on racist grounds perhaps, as Savita Halappanavar apparently pleaded for a termination in her final days of agony that she was not a Catholic?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 10:56:44 GMT
Spin says:
Molly: I have stated repeatedly that I do not object to abortion if it is the only solution, a last resort, to saving a life. I object to its legalisation as a civil liberty. Christians object to abortion in ALL cases. And I disagree with them.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 11:09:17 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Spin- not true- some christians object to abortion in all cases, not all. You are still a misogynist who puts his view over the woman whose concern it actually is.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 11:36:44 GMT
Spin says:
CA; Every life which cannot defend itself, be it a child or an badger, has the right to representation. Those who cannot defend themselves have people such as myself to fight in thier corner. And a pregnancy takes two. It is NOT only the womans decision; it is the fathers as well. But you are too blind to realise your argument is of the type you condemn in others...You speak of "equality" and "rights" while ignoring the right to life of the child and the right of the father in the decision. You are not as wise and liberal as you like to think you are.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 11:55:57 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Spin- incredible- the word you are struggling for is "foetus". Just as soon as the father carries the child to full term, then he can make a choice, until that day, it is the womans.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 11:59:24 GMT
Spin says:
CA: So the father has nothing whatsoever to do with the "foetus"? Are you denying that the genes of the foetus is 50% the fathers? Are you saying that us men have no concern whatrsoever for what you would call our "offspring"? Men are simply irrelevent to the whole physical and mental experience of parenthood? How dare you!

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 12:16:52 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Spin once the child is born then yes the fathers ( providing they are around) should have a say in what goes on. To compare the fathers input with the mothers during pregnancy is idiotic.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2012 12:28:26 GMT
Spin says:
CA; So the man's involvement in the relationship, in the physical copulation, in the emotional experience of being a parent, a "Dad", is of no relevence whatsoever? You are one cold person, you know that?
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  10
Total posts:  33
Initial post:  15 Nov 2012
Latest post:  21 Nov 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions