Miss D termination case

panda100

While this is being discussed on After hours religon has been mentioned more than once and so I thought it would be intresting to see what fellow Christians had to say on this delicate case.

Personally,I dont really believe in abortion.I like the laws as they stand at the moment. However,this case I strongly believe the girl should be allowed a termination.From my catholic faith I believe that all life is sacred.However,I just think its inhumane to allow a young girl carry for 9months and give birth to a dead baby.

What would be Catholic/Christian stance in this matter?Is abortion ever acceptable in these circles such as for cases like this one?

anto1208

Personally i think there are times when its ok very rare but i don t think the church would agree with me . But we rarely do agree these days

kelly1

panda100 wrote:

While this is being discussed on After hours religon has been mentioned more than once and so I thought it would be intresting to see what fellow Christians had to say on this delicate case.

Personally,I dont really believe in abortion.I like the laws as they stand at the moment. However,this case I strongly believe the girl should be allowed a termination.From my catholic faith I believe that all life is sacred.However,I just think its inhumane to allow a young girl carry for 9months and give birth to a dead baby.

What would be Catholic/Christian stance in this matter?Is abortion ever acceptable in these circles such as for cases like this one?

Hello Panda, I don't think abortion is ever acceptable.

No matter what abnormalities the baby may be born with, killing the baby is never morally justifiable regardless of whether the child is born alive or dead.

The child still has a human God-given soul. It's fate should be left in God's hands. We have no right to kill this child!

Regards,
Noel.

Sangre

What if God intervenes through a miracle and the baby is born alive?

Nevyn

The chances are it will be born alive but will not have enough brain function to sustain it's own body and will die.

fatmammycat

"The child still has a human God-given soul. It's fate should be left in God's hands. We have no right to kill this child!"
It's not a child at all, it's a fetus, a deformed fetus. And whatever chance it had of becoming a child died the moment it's frontal brain did not develop.

PDN

I've been there. My second daughter was diagnosed with a severe abnormality while still in the womb. We did not opt for abortion because we believe that we do not have the right to destroy another human being. Her condition was not as severe as in this case. The prognosis was that she would require 24 hour care and would die before her 5th birthday (she died aged 4 years and 10 months). It was 5 years of sheer hell, but I still believe we made the right choice.

I also understand a scared young girl seeing abortion as her only answer.

My concern is that this desperately tragic case has come to light during a General Election campaign. Now all we need is some opportunistic politician to come up with a kneejerk reaction that opens the doors to thousands of healthy babies being aborted.

Whether you agree with abortion or not, this case should move us all to pray for the young girl concerned and for her unborn child.

jhegarty

The thing here is, who are we to decided that this baby should not live for that length of time....

The baby won't be born dead, but will survive 1 -3 days.... who are we to say 3 days is too short, how about 5 days , a month , a year , how about 10.... its not our place... unless someone wants to set the numbers of days you need to make a life worth it ?

Every baby who is born will die , be it in 3 days or 100 years......

fatmammycat

jhegarty wrote:

The thing here is, who are we to decided that this baby should not live for that length of time....

The baby won't be born dead, but will survive 1 -3 days.... who are we to say 3 days is too short, how about 5 days , a month , a year , how about 10.... its not our place... unless someone wants to set the numbers of days you need to make a life worth it ?

Every baby who is born will die , be it in 3 days or 100 years......

Respectfully I would then ask who are we to say this girl should carry full term is she does not want to do so? It's a horrible situation to be in and I cannot imagine the fear and heartbreak she is enduring, but we don't have a right over her body. We don't have the right to FORCE her to carry on with a non viable pregnancy.

PDN

fatmammycat wrote:

Respectfully I would then ask who are we to say this girl should carry full term is she does not want to do so? It's a horrible situation to be in and I cannot imagine the fear and heartbreak she is enduring, but we don't have a right over her body. We don't have the right to FORCE her to carry on with a non viable pregnancy.

If it were just her body then that would be a different matter. The unborn child within her is not a part of her body.

And, yes, the fear and heartbreak is hard for any of us to imagine.

philologos

fatmammycat wrote:

"The child still has a human God-given soul. It's fate should be left in God's hands. We have no right to kill this child!"
It's not a child at all, it's a fetus, a deformed fetus. And whatever chance it had of becoming a child died the moment it's frontal brain did not develop.

Whether or not the being is a child or not (I would consider it to be one). God has commanded us not to unlawfully murder. It may be a fetus, but it it a human fetus and as such we should still regard it as a human being. I'm 100% against abortion of any shape or form.

kelly1

fatmammycat wrote:

"The child still has a human God-given soul. It's fate should be left in God's hands. We have no right to kill this child!"
It's not a child at all, it's a fetus, a deformed fetus. And whatever chance it had of becoming a child died the moment it's frontal brain did not develop.

FMC, when did you receive the power to decide who lives and who dies? If this were your baby/foetus, would you carry out the termination (assuming you had the means/training)? Would you abort a baby with Down's syndrome? Where do you draw the line?

All human life is sacred. God creates life so we have no right to destroy God's work! The child should be baptized at birth and if s/he dies at birth, all if well for that blessed child! I know of course death would be traumatic for the parent(s), but there would be no agony of conscience to deal with.

God bless you,
Noel.

Lemming

Here's a little thought for you all ....

What if God already decided the fate of this unborn? I use that term deliberately because it is for all intents and purposes already dead and thus will never be an actual "child" - I wont list the clinical issues because they should be wildly f*cking obvious to anyone who has half a brain (no pun intended, no matter how tasteless)

In short, you are condoning forcing a child to endure 5 months knowingly carrying an already dead foetus to term and then go through the danger and trauma of giving birth to something that is already dead, for the sake of pompous piety. Do you think that God would not turn a shade of deep red embarrasment at that being carried out in his name? To know that the sole reasoning is out of a level of utter, utter selfishly induced suffering so that you can feel morally "comfortable"?

The level of puritanical absoluteism being portrayed is truly vile and representitive of the worst dregs of human cruelty. I have to say that I find myself checking my calendar and wondering if we've left the dark ages and the inquisition at all.

You call yourself Christian. I can see no empathy here. No feeling for fellow humanity or love for your neighbour. Only cold dogma.

fatmammycat

How does the imagined rights of a deformed fetus that cannot survive, live, partake in life, take precedence over the rights of a woman and her express wishes.
This is not a debate I would enter into lightly. I do not see this as a theological debate at all, but rather a practical and compassionate one. This fetus is beyond salvation, the mother is not. She should not have to carry this burden to full term if she chooses not to. To my mind-and I realise we do not all feel the same-it is as simple as that.
I think religion should be for the religious and should keep its biased hand out of the medical.
I would ask, would any of you force any daughter of yours to go through this ordeal if she did not want to?
I'm guessing you would not. Well this girl had no real family to speak of and forcing her-at 17- to carry a dying fetus to full term to cover some spurious ethic is barbaric in my eyes.

fatmammycat

kelly1 wrote:

FMC, when did you receive the power to decide who lives and who dies? If this were your baby/foetus, would you carry out the termination (assuming you had the means/training)? Would you abort a baby with Down's syndrome? Where do you draw the line?

All human life is sacred. God creates life so we have no right to destroy God's work! The child should be baptized at birth and if s/he dies at birth, all if well for that blessed child! I know of course death would be traumatic for the parent(s), but there would be no agony of conscience to deal with.

God bless you,
Noel.

Noel- I didn't.
Yes.
Yes.
That would depend on viability.
Is that so?
Did he indeed?
Says who?
Are you sure about that? You pin that view on your religious affiliation. I have none and perhaps this girl Miss D has none either. In which case your points are moot.

OctavarIan

Lemming wrote:

Here's a little thought for you all ....

What if God already decided the fate of this unborn? I use that term deliberately because it is for all intents and purposes already dead and thus will never be an actual "child" - I wont list the clinical issues because they should be wildly f*cking obvious to anyone who has half a brain (no pun intended, no matter how tasteless)

In short, you are condoning forcing a child to endure 5 months knowingly carrying an already dead foetus to term and then go through the danger and trauma of giving birth to something that is already dead, for the sake of pompous piety. Do you think that God would not turn a shade of deep red embarrasment at that being carried out in his name? To know that the sole reasoning is out of a level of utter, utter selfishly induced suffering so that you can feel morally "comfortable"?

The level of puritanical absoluteism being portrayed is truly vile and representitive of the worst dregs of human cruelty. I have to say that I find myself checking my calendar and wondering if we've left the dark ages and the inquisition at all.

You call yourself Christian. I can see no empathy here. No feeling for fellow humanity or love for your neighbour. Only cold dogma.

You said everything I was thinking but put it into words much better than I could have

robindch

Jakkass wrote:

God has commanded us not to unlawfully murder.

But in the UK, where I believe she wants to go, abortion is legal. Doesn't that mean that you therefore support abortion in the UK?

Schuhart

I don't think abortion ethics work outside of the personal realm. There has to be some arbitrary start placed on when a foetus is given rights, but it is arbitrary and I don't think we can fool ourselves that its otherwise. Why does an extra day suddenly switch on a whole load of rights that didn't exist yesterday?

I can respect Kelly1's position as a personal ethic, even to the extent of no individual health professional being compelled to assist in an abortion where they shared that ethic.

I don't see, though, what we can do apart from setting an arbitrary point where a pregnancy is deemed irreversible and leave the rest to individual decision. I don't see what objective criteria for viability can be set to distinguish between this case and that. In particular, I don't see how we could establish that a pregnancy that would result in a child being born with Down's Syndrome could be terminated in situations where a foetus with no known disabilities would be required to go full term.

I don't think anyone suggests other than that abortion should be avoided. General ethics would surely demand practical steps that remove the need for abortion, rather than prohibition.

kelly1

Lemming wrote:

What if God already decided the fate of this unborn? I use that term deliberately because it is for all intents and purposes already dead and thus will never be an actual "child"

The child isn't dead. Do you measure someone's worth by their usefulness to society? Do you condone euthanasia too?

Lemming wrote:

In short, you are condoning forcing a child to endure 5 months knowingly carrying an already dead foetus to term and then go through the danger and trauma of giving birth to something that is already dead, for the sake of pompous piety.

Moot point, the foetus isn't dead.

Lemming wrote:

Do you think that God would not turn a shade of deep red embarrasment at that being carried out in his name?

No.

Lemming wrote:

To know that the sole reasoning is out of a level of utter, utter selfishly induced suffering so that you can feel morally "comfortable"?

Non-sense. Who say's the child will/does suffer? Isn't it far more selfish to terminate the life of a defenceless child and for what purpose?

Lemming wrote:

The level of puritanical absoluteism being portrayed is truly vile and representitive of the worst dregs of human cruelty.

I'm condemning murder and you say this about me??

Lemming wrote:

You call yourself Christian. I can see no empathy here. No feeling for fellow humanity or love for your neighbour. Only cold dogma.

Who's self-righteous now? Of course I feel empathy for the predicament the mother is in. But nobody knows at this stage what will be the outcome if the child is born.

Noel.

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

But in the UK, where I believe she wants to go, abortion is legal. Doesn't that mean that you therefore support abortion in the UK?

Robin, while your point is very valid the OP stated "What would be Catholic/Christian stance in this matter?Is abortion ever acceptable in these circles such as for cases like this one?" I would like to leave this with the Christians for the moment. I am really interested to see how this can be Justified or condemn. I do not want an important issue like this one to turn into another the good vs the better. Thanks for your, and all non Christians, understanding.

robindch

...my point was related to one which wolfsbane made earlier in the year and I should have made that linkage clearer. Wolfsbane mentioned that that the "don't kill" commandment should be modified with an appropriate context to the extent that he believes that "do not kill" actually means "do not kill unless required to do so, or permitted to do so, by law".

This assertive contextualization occurs, I believe largely exclusively, in protestant variations of christianity and I am (still) interested to know whether the UK's law permitting abortion could therefore be thought -- in Jakkass's explicit use of the word "unlawfully" -- to override the "don't kill" commandment which is usually the one used to justify opposition to abortion.

The point, poorly made, is directly related to how christians extract meaning from the text of the bible and try to apply it to real-life situations which is what I understood the OP was asking.

BTW, I'm not arguing one way or the other about abortion. This thread, if not forum too, is much too small a place to contain that particular shouting-match!

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

...my point was related to one which wolfsbane made earlier in the year and I should have made that linkage clearer.

Understood, and it was that missing linkage what threw me.

philologos

robindch wrote:

But in the UK, where I believe she wants to go, abortion is legal. Doesn't that mean that you therefore support abortion in the UK?

Unlawful as in against scriptural law. We aren't permitted to kill any human being, whether in fetal form or not.

Mitch Connor

kelly1 wrote:

Non-sense. Who say's the child will/does suffer? Isn't it far more selfish to terminate the life of a defenceless child and for what purpose?

All medical professionals - the child is likely to 'live' for only a few hours, and be in horrible pain for the duration.

panda100

Jakkass wrote:

Unlawful as in against scriptural law. We aren't permitted to kill any human being, whether in fetal form or not.

Yes I know this but God has already sentenced this baby to death.Having the termination would be the most humane option both physically and menatlly for the young mother. Doesnt the bible teach us to be humane and bring comfort to our fellow human beings?

kelly1

kelly1 wrote:

The child isn't dead. Do you measure someone's worth by their usefulness to society? Do you condone euthanasia too?

Moot point, the foetus isn't dead.

wiki:

Anencephaly is a cephalic disorder that results from a neural tube defect that occurs when the cephalic (head) end of the neural tube fails to close, usually between the 23rd and 26th day of pregnancy, resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. Infants with this disorder are born without a forebrain, the largest part of the brain consisting mainly of the cerebral hemispheres (which include the isocortex, which is responsible for higher level cognition, i.e., thinking). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed - not covered by bone or skin.

Emphasis mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

PDN, I'm glad you felt you made the right choice, but I would like to point out to people that it was a choice, and it should remain so for anyone else.

If you have religious issues with abortion yourself [addressing not just PDN here] then don't get one but don't put someone else through this suffering.

I'm condemning murder and you say this about me??

Noone is talking about murder, we are talking about a possible legal abortion.

kelly1

Tauren wrote:

All medical professionals - the child is likely to 'live' for only a few hours, and be in horrible pain for the duration.

From what I've read about Anencephaly, the foetus/child is not likely to have the capacity to feel pain. What reason do you have for saying that the child will be in horrible pain?

N.

Lemming

kelly1 wrote:

From what I've read about Anencephaly, the foetus/child is not likely to have the capacity to feel pain. What reason do you have for saying that the child will be in horrible pain?

N.

No it wont feel pain. Nor will it feel anything else. In fact it wont even be put onto a ventilator to help it breath as medical experts would appear almost universal in simply agreeing that nature should simply be allowed to occur without interference given the end result is an utterly foregone conclusion. This foetus, if brought to term, WILL die very shortly after death - up to about a maximum of 3 days. Could be 3 minutes. But it will not be aware, it will not feel anything.

A cow on a conveyor belt to the slaughter-house has more cognitive ability. Sorry to seem so clinical and cold, but this foetus will literally be a slab of meat with twitching motor responses.

You want to push the girl through this absolute hell? God decided that it would die the moment this condition manifested itself. Any protestations of "feeling" ring cold after your insistence on pushing her through this. As I said, unchristian and inhumanly cruel.

Nevyn

Look I understand the religious point of view that the baby when born may live long enough to be baptised and enter a state of grace free from orginal sin and so when it does die it will go to heaven.

Great fantastic no issue with that what so ever other then this is clearly not what the mother believes or wants and we are ment to be living in a republic which does not put any religion or sect over any other in terms of law.

philologos

It was clear that in the last referendum the people voted against legalising abortion, and for the better I'd say.

Nevyn

Yes but they voted for the right to travel.

UU

Okay, I've been reading about this case for a while and I must say it's certainly interesting but sad.

I realise that certain Christians here don't agree with abortion under any circumstance and tbh I can understand why you think that way but I don't agree with you. I think pro-life is a lot of the time over the top. My views are very much more pro-choice but not entirely. I know some people here won't agree with my views but I don't agree with yours and I think this extreme pro-life Christian view is obnoxious and selfish and I won't refute that.

Now onto this sensitive case. I want to express my views fully. Okay, this girl is 17. By law, she's a minor so she doesn't have full rights as a citizen. Now her foetus has this condition called anencephaly. I often heat, the case of the "baby" having a right to life but I ask "What life?". The foetus WILL DIE very soon after birth. I think the girl should be able to get an abortion.

Can ask you people, have you seen pictures of foeti with this condition??? Well, here's a link: Link Well maybe you should take a look online! It is horrific! I nearly puked when I saw them. It is not a child but a lump of flesh, a very deformed foetus. Now put this into context. This girl may have to give birth to this. I can tell you, she will be scarred for life. It wouldn't suprise me if she gets emotional and psychological damage from this experience.

Empathy. Basically putting yourself in her shoes. Those who say that the baby has a right to life aren't thinking about the girl, they are completely ignoring her. They seem to think the right of a damaged foetus who will die very soon is more important than this poor girl who is young enough to have a baby and then is carrying a baby she doesn't want because she'll have to go through the trauma of losing it and seeing it's horrific deformation. I don't think I can even barely relate to her situation. Few of us can. But I know one thing, Ireland is not a Christian country. Therefore, nobody nor the state can force their religious beliefs upon others. If you don't agree with abortion, then don't have one!!!

Also about the foetus being baptised. That's considering she is Christian which she may not be. Again, you can't baptise it unless she decides to (that's taking that she is unlawfully forced to carry it).

That's all I have to say. But why don't you look at those pictures? Why not? Maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from or do people have too much arrogance and snobbery to do so. Here's a link: Link

PDN

UU wrote:

Okay, I've been reading about this case for a while and I must say it's certainly interesting but sad.

I realise that certain Christians here don't agree with abortion under any circumstance and tbh I can understand why you think that way but I don't agree with you. I think pro-life is a lot of the time over the top. My views are very much more pro-choice but not entirely. I know some people here won't agree with my views but I don't agree with yours and I think this extreme pro-life Christian view is obnoxious and selfish and I won't refute that.

Now onto this sensitive case. I want to express my views fully. Okay, this girl is 17. By law, she's a minor so she doesn't have full rights as a citizen. Now her foetus has this condition called anencephaly. I often heat, the case of the "baby" having a right to life but I ask "What life?". The foetus WILL DIE very soon after birth. I think the girl should be able to get an abortion.

Can ask you people, have you seen pictures of foeti with this condition??? Well, here's a link: Link Well maybe you should take a look online! It is horrific! I nearly puked when I saw them. It is not a child but a lump of flesh, a very deformed foetus. Now put this into context. This girl may have to give birth to this. I can tell you, she will be scarred for life. It wouldn't suprise me if she gets emotional and psychological damage from this experience.

Empathy. Basically putting yourself in her shoes. Those who say that the baby has a right to life aren't thinking about the girl, they are completely ignoring her. They seem to think the right of a damaged foetus who will die very soon is more important than this poor girl who is young enough to have a baby and then is carrying a baby she doesn't want because she'll have to go through the trauma of losing it and seeing it's horrific deformation. I don't think I can even barely relate to her situation. Few of us can. But I know one thing, Ireland is not a Christian country. Therefore, nobody nor the state can force their religious beliefs upon others. If you don't agree with abortion, then don't have one!!!

Also about the foetus being baptised. That's considering she is Christian which she may not be. Again, you can't baptise it unless she decides to (that's taking that she is unlawfully forced to carry it).

That's all I have to say. But why don't you look at those pictures? Why not? Maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from or do people have too much arrogance and snobbery to do so. Here's a link: Link

What I see are pictures of tragically deformed babies (in some cases they went full term, others were apparently aborted). But these are not 'lumps of flesh' they are babies.

I don't think there's much chance of these girl being 'forced' to carry her baby full term - nor do I think many posters are suggesting that should happen. She is 17 years old, and I don't see that the HSE has any right to stop a 17-year old young adult from boarding a flight to England for any purpose.

UU

PDN wrote:

What I see are pictures of tragically deformed babies (in some cases they went full term, others were apparently aborted). But these are not 'lumps of flesh' they are babies.

I don't think there's much chance of these girl being 'forced' to carry her baby full term - nor do I think many posters are suggesting that should happen. She is 17 years old, and I don't see that the HSE has any right to stop a 17-year old young adult from boarding a flight to England for any purpose.

True.

philologos

robindch wrote:

This assertive contextualization occurs, I believe largely exclusively, in protestant variations of christianity and I am (still) interested to know whether the UK's law permitting abortion could therefore be thought -- in Jakkass's explicit use of the word "unlawfully" -- to override the "don't kill" commandment which is usually the one used to justify opposition to abortion.

My Bible seems to say "Do not murder". Murder if one looks up a dictionary is the unlawful killing of a human being. Unlawful scripturally in this context.

PDN

robindch wrote:

...my point was related to one which wolfsbane made earlier in the year and I should have made that linkage clearer. Wolfsbane mentioned that that the "don't kill" commandment should be modified with an appropriate context to the extent that he believes that "do not kill" actually means "do not kill unless required to do so, or permitted to do so, by law".

This assertive contextualization occurs, I believe largely exclusively, in protestant variations of christianity and I am (still) interested to know whether the UK's law permitting abortion could therefore be thought -- in Jakkass's explicit use of the word "unlawfully" -- to override the "don't kill" commandment which is usually the one used to justify opposition to abortion.

Most evangelical Christians would see Scripture as being a higher law than the law of the land. We should follow and obey the laws of the land where possible, but when conflict occurs Scripture trumps civic law (of course the civil authorities don't see it this way so you can risk going to jail). This produces at least four possible scenarios.

1. There are conflicts when the law of the land forbids a Christian from doing something that is integral to their faith. For example, I smuggle Bibles into countries where they are forbidden because I believe the Scriptural imperative to spread the Gospel to all nations and ethnic groups overrides such repressive legislation. Therefore I am happy to break the law of the land.

2. Then there are conflicts where the law of the land permits something that Scripture forbids. Some of these are matters of personal morality, and therefore a Christian simply abstains from the practice without attempting to influence others to do likewise. For example, I understand Scripture as forbidding homosexual practices, therefore I abstain from such (not that I've ever had the inclination, but that's another matter). However, I do not attempt to influence or force unbelievers to abstain from homosexual practices because I believe it is fundamentally wrong to force non-Christians to adhere to Christian morality in personal matters. Therefore I would not support any moves to criminalise homosexual acts.

3. Next there are conflicts where the law of the land permits a practice that is forbidden by Scripture, and that practice is severe enough in its consequences to motivate Christians to press for its prohibition. Obvious historical examples include Wilberforce's campaign against slavery, the Salvation Army's campaign in Victorian England to raise the age of consent (thus criminalising child prostitution), Martin Neimoller and the Confessing Church in Germany opposing Nazism, and Martin Luther King's leadership of the fight against segregation. In these cases civil disobedience may be a legitimate tactic.

4. Finally, there is a very problematic area. Where a practice, although condoned by the law of the land, is so evil that Christians may commit a 'lesser' evil in order to prevent the 'greater' evil. For example, some Christians participated in Stauffenberg's assassination attempt against Hitler. This last scenario has vast potential for abuse (eg crazies who assassinate abortion doctors in the US). Therefore many Christians deny that this "the end justifies the means" philosophy is ever a valid option. I would imagine that this kind of thinking is what motivates fake pregnancy advice centres that give false information. They believe that it is permissable to commit a lesser sin (lying) to prevent a greater sin (killing a baby).

Now, the problems really occur when we disagree as to which of the above scenarios actually apply in any given case.

For example, take a comment earlier in the thread:

bluewolf wrote:

PDN, I'm glad you felt you made the right choice, but I would like to point out to people that it was a choice, and it should remain so for anyone else.

If you have religious issues with abortion yourself [addressing not just PDN here] then don't get one but don't put someone else through this suffering.

That is fine if Bluewolf sees abortion as falling into scenario 2 (an issue of personal morality). However, I believe that the consequences of abortion are too serious for that to be the case. I believe that killing a baby (inside or outside of the womb) is murder. The fact that such murder is legalised in some countries does not stop it from being murder (this principle is not just a Christian one. Nazis who operated concentration camps were prosecuted at Nuremberg as murderers, even though their actions were legal under the laws of the Third Reich).

However, to prevent a 17 year old from travelling freely to the UK would, in my opinion, be applying scenario 4. Freedom to travel is a basic human right, and it would be fascistic and deeply damaging to a democratic society to start preventing people from travelling just because we think they might do something wrong once they reach their destination.

Therefore, as a Christian, I want abortion to remain illegal in Ireland. Even though this case is particularly tragic, I still believe it would be wrong for the Irish medical system to abort Girl D's baby, and as an Irish taxpayer and citizen I have a right to state my case. In this case the girl has an obvious right to travel to England, and I believe the courts will recognise that right. Finance is obviously not an issue since the costs of bringing a court action are zillions times more than a Ryanair ticket to Manchester. Once she is in the UK then her decision to have an abortion is none of our business. Either way this girl has gone through hell and faced a trauma that none of us would wish on our worst enemies. Whatever happens there are no winners here - unless bandwagon jumpers like Ivana Bacik succeed in their attempts to cynically exploit this case to challenge Irish law and open the way for thousands of perfectly healthy babies to be killed.

Nevyn

The catholic church's current take on abortion is rather recent in it's history and this is not that well generally known by a lot of people.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Pope Pius IX reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 and to refer simply to "the fetus." The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended. The church requires excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

jhegarty

bluewolf wrote:

If you have religious issues with abortion yourself [addressing not just PDN here] then don't get one but don't put someone else through this suffering.

Sometimes its just about Right and Wrong, not religion.

Eg. Murder is wrong (see 10 commandments) but this isn't the reason I don't think anyone should go on a rampage around a school with a gun....

Lemming

PDN wrote:

Most evangelical Christians would see Scripture as being a higher law than the law of the land. We should follow and obey the laws of the land where possible, but when conflict occurs Scripture trumps civic law (of course the civil authorities don't see it this way so you can risk going to jail). This produces at least four possible scenarios.

<snip>

Therefore, as a Christian, I want abortion to remain illegal in Ireland. Even though this case is particularly tragic, I still believe it would be wrong for the Irish medical system to abort Girl D's baby, and as an Irish taxpayer and citizen I have a right to state my case.

Tell me, where do you stand on Islamic Sharia Law being folloewd as a higher law than the law of the land? I refer here to the more extreme elements to make my point admittedly, such as honour killings, mutilation, etc. but the point still stands that there are people of the Islamic faith that think that they should be allowed to practice Sharia law over the law of the land.

Now what you may ask Sharia law has to do with anything - well, your comments regarding being a Christian and wanting Christian belief imposed over the law of the land strikes me as the exact same line of thinking that less moderate Muslims have been trying to put forward, more notably in the UK. So, would you be perfectly happy to be allowed carry out Christian belief above the law of the land if Muslims were afforded that same choice no matter how extreme the particular act may be? What would happen then if one religion viewed an act of another's as blasphemy? Oh dear ... who trumps whom? This is why religion should never trump civic law.

PDN

Lemming wrote:

Tell me, where do you stand on Islamic Sharia Law being folloewd as a higher law than the law of the land? I refer here to the more extreme elements to make my point admittedly, such as honour killings, mutilation, etc. but the point still stands that there are people of the Islamic faith that think that they should be allowed to practice Sharia law over the law of the land.

Now what you may ask Sharia law has to do with anything - well, your comments regarding being a Christian and wanting Christian belief imposed over the law of the land strikes me as the exact same line of thinking that less moderate Muslims have been trying to put forward, more notably in the UK. So, would you be perfectly happy to be allowed carry out Christian belief above the law of the land if Muslims were afforded that same choice no matter how extreme the particular act may be? What would happen then if one religion viewed an act of another's as blasphemy? Oh dear ... who trumps whom? This is why religion should never trump civic law.

I did not say that I want Christian belief to be imposed on the law of the land. Actually I specifically stated that on issues of personal morality and faith that non-Christians should not be compelled in any way to adhere to Christian morality.

I also said that as a Christian I may make a choice to obey Scripture rather than the law of the land, but then I have to be prepared to suffer prosecution or worse. An example of this would be Pentecostal Christians in the UK who were imprisoned for refusing to fight in World War 1, even though conscription was the law of the land.

However, I also stated that as a Christian I believe that we should actively seek for laws that prevent others (usually the vulnerable) from being harmed by others immoral behaviour. This would include protecting children from sexual predators, preventing slavery, preventing drunk drivers from killing people through their stupidity etc. Since the unborn child is the most vulnerable person of all then my opposition to abortion plainly falls within this category.

The Sharia law that you mention in no way corresponds to my position on abortion. Muslims have a perfect right to practice their own morality, but they do not have thr right to enforce that on others. If an adult Muslim, or indeed any adult, wants to mutilate his or her own body then that is their right. If they want to enforce that on another, as in practising female genital mutilation on a child, then they should be locked up and the key thrown away. If Sharia law were to afford protection to someone who is otherwise being allowed to suffer under Irish law then they would have strong case to campaign for the law to be changed - but I am unaware of any point where this would be true.

You have a perfect right to disagree with my position and my morals, but please make sure you are arguing with what I actually said, not a misrepresentation of what I said.

This is why religion should never trump civic law.

Do you really believe that? Are you prepared to argue that Christians who, because of their religious beliefs, illegally sheltered Jews in Nazi Germany should have obeyed the law and handed the Jews over to the butchers of Auschwitz?

Lemming

PDN wrote:

Do you really believe that? Are you prepared to argue that Christians who, because of their religious beliefs, illegally sheltered Jews in Nazi Germany should have obeyed the law and handed the Jews over to the butchers of Auschwitz?

Ah ... Godwins law. You've defaulted and lost your entire argument by bringing Nazi Germany in as some sort of "parallel".

But lets just push that aside for a moment and look at the absurdity of what you're tyring to compare. The systematic genocide of a people vs. termination of something that may become a person and may not due to any number of things that could occur.

Further, many Germans did not believe stories filtering through from outside of Germany that theri government was conducting systematic slaughter of jews, even up until the end of the war, refusing to believe it was possible. Indeed, many allied countries citizens didn't believe the stories either, thinking them just propoganda.

You need a far, far, farrrrrrrrrrrrrr better argument than that. Because it's isanely simplistic and idiotic. And doesn't compare apples with apples.

PDN

Lemming wrote:

Ah ... Godwins law. You've defaulted and lost your entire argument by bringing Nazi Germany in as some sort of "parallel".

But lets just push that aside for a moment and look at the absurdity of what you're tyring to compare. The systematic genocide of a people vs. termination of something that may become a person and may not due to any number of things that could occur.

Further, many Germans did not believe stories filtering through from outside of Germany that theri government was conducting systematic slaughter of jews, even up until the end of the war, refusing to believe it was possible. Indeed, many allied countries citizens didn't believe the stories either, thinking them just propoganda.

You need a far, far, farrrrrrrrrrrrrr better argument than that. Because it's isanely simplistic and idiotic. And doesn't compare apples with apples.

No, you said, "This is why religion should never trump civic law."
Never means not once, not even under the most extreme circumstances. Therefore, to prove your statement false, I simply need to produce one example (however exceptional) where religion does indeed trump civic law. You may, of course, wish to amend your statement to "This is why religion should hardly ever trump civic law". So, I was not comparing abortion (the killing of millions of little unborn people) with genocide (the killing of millions of bigger people already born).

As for Godwin's Law, it is not a law at all. It is a silly little convention among nerds on the internet. I refuse to be bound by it, particularly on a Christianity forum, because Godwin's Law is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The idea is that Nazism and the holocaust was such a one-off event, so horrific and unique, that it cheapens it to refer to it in any other context. In fact that is totally untrue. Events in Turkey (the Armenian holocaust), in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Cambodia show that the Nazi holocaust was one of many horrible atrocities that are depressingly similar. Indeed, Mao's slaughter of his own people in China far exceeded, in terms of deaths, the Nazi holocaust. Godwin's law is based on an imaginary and unbiblical optimistic view of human nature. So, a pox on your Godwin!

By the way, whether "many" Germans knew about the holocaust or not is totally irrelevant to the discussion of those who did know and deliberately broke the law on religious and moral grounds in order to shelter Jews. I also question such claims of ignorance. Have you ever been to Dachau? The camp is in the middle of a very nice pre-war middle-class housing estate. The inhabitants would have needed to have been deaf, blind and extraordinarily stupid not to have known what was happening on their doorsteps.

robindch

Jakkass wrote:

My Bible seems to say "Do not murder". Murder if one looks up a dictionary is the unlawful killing of a human being. Unlawful scripturally in this context.

Wolfsbane said that the context of "unlawful" refers only to compliance with the laws of the country where the killing takes place.

You say the context is different and that the "unlawful" refers instead to compliance with the rules laid down by the text of the bible. But which rules are the ones to follow? There's quite a lot of murdering, and instructions to murder, in the OT -- Deuteronomy 13:6-10 for example, where religious believers are instructed to murder their brothers and sisters, children, wife (why not husbands?) or friends, if any of them choose to believe a different set of religious beliefs.

So is it therefore also your belief that it's ok to kill people in accordance with these fairly clear biblical instructions?

panda100

Jakkass wrote:

My Bible seems to say "Do not murder". Murder if one looks up a dictionary is the unlawful killing of a human being. Unlawful scripturally in this context.

You see this confuses me cos my bible also says to honour your mother and your father. If the mother and father decide to terminate the pregnancy then the unborn is surely honouring the wishes of her/his mother and father?Does that make sense?Who can say which commandment is more importnat 'thou shaln not murder' or 'thou shalt honour thy mother and father''?

PDN

panda100 wrote:

You see this confuses me cos my bible also says to honour your mother and your father. If the mother and father decide to terminate the pregnancy then the unborn is surely honouring the wishes of her/his mother and father?Does that make sense?Who can say which commandment is more importnat 'thou shaln not murder' or 'thou shalt honour thy mother and father''?

Hmm, let's follow this line of thinking further. You could, of course, use the exact same argument to say that a child that is sexually abused by its father is obeying the commandment to honour its father.

Not good.

Lemming

PDN wrote:

No, you said, "This is why religion should never trump civic law."
Never means not once, not even under the most extreme circumstances. Therefore, to prove your statement false, I simply need to produce one example (however exceptional) where religion does indeed trump civic law. You may, of course, wish to amend your statement to "This is why religion should hardly ever trump civic law". So, I was not comparing abortion (the killing of millions of little unborn people) with genocide (the killing of millions of bigger people already born).

[/quote]

No, I stand by my choice of wording since you have utterly, utterly missed the boat in attempting to make a simplistic argument out of the events around the holocaust and likening it to abortion.

Compare apples with apples, not oranges. Actually, this isn't even a case of apples vs. oranges. this is a case of an airplane vs. an orange.

As for Godwin's Law, it is not a law at all. It is a silly little convention among nerds on the internet. I refuse to be bound by it, particularly on a Christianity forum, because Godwin's Law is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The idea is that Nazism and the holocaust was such a one-off event, so horrific and unique, that it cheapens it to refer to it in any other context. In fact that is totally untrue. Events in Turkey (the Armenian holocaust), in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Cambodia show that the Nazi holocaust was one of many horrible atrocities that are depressingly similar. Indeed, Mao's slaughter of his own people in China far exceeded, in terms of deaths, the Nazi holocaust. Godwin's law is based on an imaginary and unbiblical optimistic view of human nature. So, a pox on your Godwin!

Actually Godwins Law works around the concept that because the Holocaust was such a horrifying event it is an extremely emotive subject and that anybody trying to liken just about any other subject to it has immediately lost their perspective.

THAT is what Godwin's law is. You've lost your perspective by attempting to liken a 17 year old girl being severely traumatised and forced to give birth for no reaon to one of the 20th Centuries most appalling events (although incidentally by no means the worst)

By the way, whether "many" Germans knew about the holocaust or not is totally irrelevant to the discussion of those who did know and deliberately broke the law on religious and moral grounds in order to shelter Jews. I also question such claims of ignorance. Have you ever been to Dachau? The camp is in the middle of a very nice pre-war middle-class housing estate.

Apples vs. oranges again ... You're comparing what we now know with what people didnt' know then. When WW2 started, the Nazi party (and Germany by extension) were not seen as "evil". Dangerous most certainly, and brutal, but not "evil". It was only when the Allies entered Germany and found those camps that the world found out exactly what had been done.

Many Germans refused to believe what was done, until they were ordered to clean up the camps and see for themselves what their government had done.

This does not excuse what was done, nor the population pretending not to notice strange/suspicious goings-on around them since they were scared sh*tless of being branded "trouble-makers". But to stand there and pontificate on how couldn't they have *possibly* known when we do is utterly blinkered. You're also forgetting the extreme amount of propoganda that was getting thrown about by all sides. Many citizens just chalked whatever they heard up as more of the same propoganda. They werne't as well educated (over-all) as we were having not had the same opportunity of schooling, access to information, etc.

The inhabitants would have needed to have been deaf, blind and extraordinarily stupid not to have known what was happening on their doorsteps.

Many were told these were "work camps". And on top of that, anybody questioning the nazi government was "disappeared", possibly along with family members, which became more noticeable as the war moved on and more and more Germans began to live in fear of their own government agencies.

As an aside, there were actually very few dedicated "death-camps" during the war. There were many work-camps that brutalised those poor unfortunates who were condemned to such places. Only towards the end did the Nazi regime really step up its efforts to enact the "final solution" by killing people.

You really are making a shockingly stupid argument PDN. Truly.

BrianCalgary

hey Lemming, I think that you are missing it. The argument isn't the degree of carnage, but the principle of whether or not to obey societies laws if they are morally wrong.

Nazi Germany is an example of this. People who went against the law to protect fellow citizens.

There are people in Canada who broke the law and performed abortions, until it became legal to do so.

Human Rights activists in the USA broke the law in order to allow blacks equal rights. They did this by sitting in the white sections of restaurants and busses.

There are many example throughout history of people breaking immoral laws for what they think is right.

PDN

Lemming wrote:

No, I stand by my choice of wording since you have utterly, utterly missed the boat in attempting to make a simplistic argument out of the events around the holocaust and likening it to abortion.

Could you please show where I likened the holocaust to abortion? Why don't people read posts before answering?

You've lost your perspective by attempting to liken a 17 year old girl being severely traumatised and forced to give birth for no reaon to one of the 20th Centuries most appalling events (although incidentally by no means the worst)

Where did I liken the 2 events?

If you can show me where I made such a comparison I will immediately apologise.

What I did do is to use the example of the holocaust to demonstrate the falsity of your statement that religion should never trump civic law. That is a different argument entirely and I am wondering if you are genuinely unable to see that or just deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting what I said.

Uhhh... I'm with PDN on this one.
Lemming seems a bit confused.

philologos

panda100 wrote:

You see this confuses me cos my bible also says to honour your mother and your father. If the mother and father decide to terminate the pregnancy then the unborn is surely honouring the wishes of her/his mother and father?Does that make sense?Who can say which commandment is more importnat 'thou shaln not murder' or 'thou shalt honour thy mother and father''?

The child isn't born to honour its parents or not, it has no moral guidance or conciousness, but the parents are committing a sin by aborting that child. All rulings of God bear the same weight.

Lemming

BrianCalgary wrote:

hey Lemming, I think that you are missing it. The argument isn't the degree of carnage, but the principle of whether or not to obey societies laws if they are morally wrong.

And what everyone is still overlooking is that in the woefully given example of Nazi Germany, it wasn't just law, it was to "marked" for extra attention by the secret police. People did what they did and did not challenge it because they were afraid of their own government.

There's a difference here. A grotesque and, I would imagine, not terribly subtle difference between trying to liken society's laws with what transpired inside the boundaries of Nazi control during WW2.

Nazi Germany is an example of this. People who went against the law to protect fellow citizens.

It wasn't only Catholics who shielded Jews and other targetted minorities.

I think rather than tryhing to spell out why invoking the third reich as an example is really stupid, I'll sum it up better by simply saying that people didn't harbour others because they were Catholic, Protestent, Hindu, Muslim, or Aliens-from-Mars.

They did so because what was going inside Nazi Germany was extremely suspect. People were simply told to hate x, y, and z minorities and then watch as the authorities rounded up their neighbours in brutal fashion. That some people rose above their fear of the state has naught to do with religion. And anyone who claims it does does those people a dis-service.

Human Rights activists in the USA broke the law in order to allow blacks equal rights. They did this by sitting in the white sections of restaurants and busses.

Nothing to do with religion.

There are many example throughout history of people breaking immoral laws for what they think is right.

And I'd hazard a guess a lot of it was nothing to do with religion. I've quite clearly stated why religious law should never trump civic law. Whether law is unjust is another matter. And that, again, has bog all to do with religion.