WH,

You preach your views more than any member of any religion I know. I think you need to get off your soapbox, it's not healthy.
As Hi Ho says, you always bring it back to religion.
Do you work for the Telegraph or do you just have nothing better to do than come on here trying to change the world?

As this is relating to human rights, if someone wants to believe and listen to religious fairy tales, who gives you the right to come on here and offend them?

Posted by Jim | 21.11.09, 00:24 GMT

I for one totally agree with WH, perhaps not his tone but his reason to bring religion into most things is valid - as religion unfortunately permeates into every corner of society.

Religion is part of the problem and if commonsense prevails soon religion and state will totally seperate.

Posted by Common sense | 20.11.09, 12:38 GMT

Hi Ho,

"WH seems to bring in religion into everything" - Close but no cigar. Religion IS involved in everything, that's the problem. It interferes in people's lives, in a very dominating way, even though there is no evidence whatever to back up the existence of a 'god'. That is highly irrational, stupid and dangerous.

"Does someone have a problem or what?" - Of course I have a problem with religion. It has been responsible for millions of deaths around the world. It has been at the forefront of the subjugation of women. It breeds racism and violence. It interferes with scientific progress. It tries to prevent women having abortions. The list does not end there. Religion is a blight on the human race.

Why do religious groups, along with their cohorts in the pro-life lobby, want to interfere in women's lives? They do it to adhere to the so-called teachings of a 2000 year old discredited 'holy' book. It is scandalous and an insult to human intelligence.

Posted by WH | 20.11.09, 12:09 GMT

The letter asked has the Department of Health has been negligent and the legality of their actions..

This again has turned out to be a witch hunt by WH on Religion.

WH seems to bring in religion into everything.

Does someone have a problem or what?

Posted by Hi Ho | 19.11.09, 17:01 GMT

my enemys enemy is my friend- atheists motto

Posted by conor | 19.11.09, 16:21 GMT

Bunk,

I am entitled to my view, whatever it may be. You say I should be embarrassed, you are entitled to your view. I disagree with you but I can see why you would think that, especially if you have a belief in a 'god'.

People have been nice and deferential towards religion for far too long. I find it very difficult to comprehend that so many people believe in a 'god' even though there is not one bit of evidence to back it up, it is called faith, I'm told. To make the claims that religion makes and to dictate the way they dictate, in my opinion, faith is not good enough. No where near good enough.

Religious organisations then promote this irrational belief in order to advance their agendas. They pressurise politicians, they pressurise the population at large via pressure/action groups, they persecute mothers who have had abortions, they persecute doctors who carry out abortions and so on. All this because of an irrational belief in a 'god'? I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous.

Posted by WH | 19.11.09, 16:09 GMT

Nobody wants to see abortions happening! But I believe we need to put this in perspective. A percentage of those arguing against abortion associate themselves with a money making orgainisation that frowns apon the use of condoms and other birth control.

Surely we should do all we can to help control the amount of abortions take place but to take away that right is wrong.

Posted by RC | 19.11.09, 14:42 GMT

WH, again you prove the point. Your last post reads like a real fire and brimstone-style rant.

"I have read the bible, I know what is in it, most Christians do not."

It's embarrassing dude. Why don't you take a leaf from common sense's book? He/she has addressed the issue in a coherent manner and hasn't stooped to a wild attack on a religious denomination.

Have you ever taken your debating style to an organised pro-choice organisation? Do you seriously think any respectable one would regard you as an asset?

Don't worry though. Given that you've chosen topost anonymously on an online forum, I can't imagine that will ever be an issue for you.

Posted by Bunk Moreland | 19.11.09, 13:25 GMT

Jeff,

When I read a book that informs us about talking snakes and talking donkeys, I cannot help but call them fairy stories. Angels from heaven, walking on water, when does one cross the 'fairy story' line. Christians claim that the entire bible is the word of god, yes, even the uncomfortable Old Testament bits. They use them when it suits them, when criticising homosexuals for example. If they can use them, then I can use them. I have read the bible, I know what is in it, most Christians do not. Most Christians go to church once a week to hear the 'best bits' of the bible from some bloke in a dog collar.

Do I want abortions to happen? Of course not, but, I live in the real world. Some women, for a variety of reasons, end up pregnant whan it was not their intention. If they choose not to proceed with that pregnancy, then they should be afforded that right. This was decided decades ago in the rest of the UK, but we didn't get included because we are a religious backwater.

Posted by WH | 19.11.09, 10:51 GMT

Jeff Greene - I agree with your point about terms such as 'fairy tales' but I also can see where WH is coming from. Nothing makes me madder than some pious individual taking the higher ground in the name of some deity above hard fact in terms of science.

People like Tracy (now she doesn't mention anything religious but I'll put money down she is) who carp on about another human life..blah blah blah. Well technically a fetus isn't 'alive', not until it can sustain life outside the womb - very few cases survive under 28 weeks and that's with the best medical technology in the world. If you want to argue that the fetus is alive from conception, then say...a sperm cell is just as alive and just as human. In that regard all men regularly perform abortion thousands of times...

Posted by Common sense | 18.11.09, 22:39 GMT

Good point from the Bunk.

WH, I actually agree with some of your points but I always cringe at how you make them. 'Christian fairy stories'? Who are you trying to convince with an argument like that?

The pro-choice debate is a crucial one for our society and attacking Christianity with snide comments like that isn't going to convince anyone. I'm pretty sceptical about a lot of what's in the bible and in no way would I agree that anyone has the right to impose their religious belief on another person.

However, are phrases like 'Christian fairy stories' and quoting select fire and brimstone passages from the Old Testament really the way to change opinions?

Is this how you open closed minds WH?

Posted by Jeff Greene | 18.11.09, 18:48 GMT

Bunk,

A pro-life atheist? I have honestly never met one.

What I have given below is my opinion, that's all. People are entitled to agree with it or they can argue against it. In no way am I trying to preach at people, I am merely stating my opinion.

Instead of focusing on my supposed attitude or intent, can you maybe suggest why I may be wrong and why pro-life groups are correct? I would be very interested to hear your answer.

I have never heard a reasoned, science based debate that is not in favour of women having the choice to proceed with a pregnancy or not. That is the issue here, why do certain people want to deny women their human rights? The only justification I ever hear from pro-life groups is about the 'sanctity' of life. What sanctity? Where does this nonsense come from? Easy, religion.

The decision to abort a foetus should be the woman's alone after a consultation with her doctor. No woman should be forced to give birth to a child against her will.

Posted by WH | 18.11.09, 16:08 GMT

WH - point proved (again!) by your last post.

A person can be pro-life and an aethiest at the same time. Did this ever occur to you? I can see by your last post that it did not. Please note I am not saying I personally am either pro-life or aethiest.

Can I be honest with you WH? I don't think you are willing to engage in proper debate and instead make sweeping, generalised statements about 'Christian fairy stories and bad science'.

Doubt I'm going to get you to stop being 'holier than thou' - especialy through the medium of an anonymous online debate. I'm still of the opinion that all online debate is pointless, so shame on me for taking part I guess.

This format is perfect for your sort of brow-beating pontificating though. Preach on WH!

Posted by Bunk Moreland | 18.11.09, 15:41 GMT

Bunk Moreland,

How is calling for equal rights for women in NI "holier than thou"?

I do not believe for one second that I am better than anyone else. I do not believe that what I have stated below is pious in any way.

Can I be honest with you, Bunk? I think that you made that comment about me because you don't have an argument against what I have said. That is the main reason why certain people normally resort to ad hominem attacks, they have nothing else.

I will state again what I think, I think that women in NI are being denied human rights because of religion. Why should a 20 week old foetus have more rights than a 25 year old, competent female? It shouldn't, unless one is a believer in Christian fairy stories and bad science.

This right to have an abortion should be universal, women in NI should have exactly the same rights as women in the rest of the UK.

If what I have said appears a bit "holier than thou" for your liking, then I suggest that you get over it.

Posted by WH | 18.11.09, 15:31 GMT

WH, for someone who doesn't believe in religion, you certainly do have a holier than thou attitude.

Posted by Bunk Moreland | 18.11.09, 14:32 GMT

Serge, are you being deliberately myopic just to try to make a misguided point? There are many differences in the judicial systems across the constituent countries of the UK. Perhaps you could study how Scots Law differs from English or NI law in terms of property and criminal law? Then you can reach the conclusion that most of the Unionist parties (along with the Nationalist parties) oppose changes to the EXISTING NI legislation, not 'opposing British laws applying to the region' as you state. WH pretty well reflects my opinion of the current situation, although you could also state that it regretably applies to the entire island of Ireland.

Posted by Bemused | 18.11.09, 10:42 GMT

If abortion is such a serious criminal offence, then why are there no attempts to prosecute those considered guilty of such crimes?

For all their bluster, I don't hear any of our reactionary representatives making serious calls for legal action. Perhaps they are afraid of drawing international attention to their oppressive and archaic views!

Posted by Pro-choice | 17.11.09, 20:59 GMT

to many of you responding, do you even know what abortion is? Have you watched one to see the real meaning of the word you so easily use? You talk about basic human rights but seem to ignore the other human involved. Have you not yet realised that you too were an tiny developing baby in your mothers womb? The only difference between you and a baby in the womb is time. Bernadette you are doing something wonderful, keep going as a voice for the unborn.

Posted by Tracy | 17.11.09, 15:43 GMT

Serge,

If you look at this issue a bit more closely, you will find that it has nothing to do with Unionism, Republicanism or Nationalism. However, it does has everything to do with religion. Women in Northern Ireland are being denied their basic human rights because some people have an irrational belief in a supernatural 'god' and because of what it says in the bible. So, because some people have a desire to believe Christian fairy stories, women in NI are not afforded the same rights as their counterparts in the rest of the UK. If it were not such a serious matter it would be laughable.

What has religion every truly done for us? I believe it has done the human race much more harm than good. We do not need religion any more.

Posted by WH | 17.11.09, 14:07 GMT

Serge

What on earth has this got to do with 'Unionists'?

Don't mistake the opinions of our MPs / MLAs as being representative of the general public please.

Sheesh

Posted by Tigger | 17.11.09, 13:16 GMT