NaFirinne wrote: » We must find better ways to solve issues of consent and maternity care then resorting to joining the many other countries that partake in the slaughter of the most innocent - over 1.6 million unborn babies slaughtered so far this year - that's 15 days -- Can you not see there is something really wrong in the world that kills this many unborn babies? Abortion does not have women best interests at heart.
gallifreya wrote: » I appreciate that a Christian view on when life begins will differ. However, would you at least consider that a foetus has only the potential to become a person? With all the will in the world.... a foetus may never be so. Spontaneous abortions happen naturally all the time, especially in the first trimester - why should a medical abortion be treated or considered any differently? My own view is that 12 weeks is a reasonable time limit for medical abortions. Bearing in mind that the foetus at this stage of development is not fully formed, not capable of feeling pain, does not have nervous system connectivity etc. Potential viability should be the benchmark and this could be fluid depending on medical advances. Posts referring to equality really push my buttons. How can a foetus possibly have equality with the Mother – who is an actual person in law? In this country we actively reverse equality in a pregnancy situation. The Mother’s rights are completely subsumed by the rights of the foetus which is not imo lawfully or even ( in my view) philosophically a person. It is a potential person which does not achieve personhood until birth when those rights are conferred. I used to be ambivalent on the subject of abortion until I became pregnant myself and saw firsthand the effects of the 8th amendment. It’s a horror show. Whatever your feelings on abortion, at least have a close look at the amendment as it stands. It does NOT protect against abortion (women with means just go elsewhere and women without means either get into debt to do the same or procure unsafe methods to achieve the end result) but it DOES have a detrimental effect on pregnant women in general. If it is removed from the constitution, legislation can address that. I would not be so sure that our TDs would legislate in favour of unrestricted abortions at all. However, at least the medical profession would be free protect actual existing women in a way they currently are hindered from doing.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Please point me in the direction of one progressive country, that legalised an abortion limit of 12 weeks and then later increased it to be available up to birth at 40 weeks? The 8th affects more than just abortions, it has a massive impact on maternity care and consent. It simply doesn't have womens best interests at heart. Women suffer and die because of this law.
NaFirinne wrote: » I really don't understand how people go on about how abortion provide women with better overall healthcare. The vast majority of abortions in the world are nothing to do with health care. Do people not think there is something really terrifying about abortion being the biggest killer in the world? Why do we slaughter perfectly health babies by the billions? Once the 8th is gotten rid of and abortions are introduced there then will be lobbyists wanting 24 weeks....after that up to birth, still telling us how terrible it is for women that they can't avail of this service.
volchitsa wrote: » No it's not a belief though, it's an identifiable harm to known individuals.
volchitsa wrote: » The fact that religions also include it in their list of Bad Things does not make it a religious belief.
volchitsa wrote: » More like divorce or contraception then : claims can be made that those are good or bad, according to one's beliefs. That's what makes them beliefs, not facts. Religious or not. Which is why a ban on murder is not theocratic in origin, a ban on divorce is likely to be so.
volchitsa wrote: » No, you've still missed the point about harms that can be identified as being done to citizens or other known individuals versus some vague "harm to society", whereas others could argue - from another moral approach but equally solidly - that more harm would be done by not allowing divorce or contraception or abortion.
Peregrinus wrote: » It certainly is a religious belief; nearly all major religions condemn murder.
It's not just a religiosu belief, of course, since you can hold this belief on grounds which are not religious. But that's generally true of ethical beliefs, and certainly true of beliefs about the ethics of abortion. You can be religious and have no objection to abortion; you can be non-religious and yet find it profoundly ethically troubling.
I don't think it does. If church control of education can't raise a generation that will go to mass, I'm not convinced that it will raise a generation that will think what they're told to think about abortion. You're heading in a very authoritarian direction here, Vol. If having been educated in a church school means that you're presumed to have "internalised" the ethics of the church concerned, and allowing you to vote in accordance with those ethics is "heading towards theocracy", the logical consequence is that it is theocratic to allow you to cast a vote on any issue, not just on abortion. So that would be pretty well every country in the world, then?
volchitsa wrote: » I didn't say it shouldn't be discussed, though. And murder is a different thing precisely because it's not just a religious belief, all societies have the same view of murder (though their definition of murder may vary)
volchitsa wrote: » Since the main religion in a country usually tends to have a major role in education, this internalization of the ethics of a particular religion do of course reflect that religion. It's entirely circular. So I think my point still stands.
volchitsa wrote: » Absent clearly identifiable harms to other citizens (robbery, murder, drink driving etc) a country which bases its legislation wholly or partly on the beliefs of the majority religion is part of the way towards establishing a theocracy.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » The baby in the womb may never be born, but I believe he or she possesses a stainless soul, and will be able to enter Heaven.
Peregrinus wrote: » Well, yeah, but we are in the Christianity forum, and the question raised in the OP is whether a Christian can vote for unlimited abortion, so Christian beliefs are obviously pertinent. Not so much. Christianity frowns upon murder; if we have a law against murder does that mean we are at least heading towards theocracy?
I don't think laws which reflect moral or philosophical views which are also held by a particular religion in themselves amount to theocracy, or even heading towards theocracy. If they do, then every country in the world is heading towards theocracy. And democracies will head towards theocracy especially fast, since the moral and philosophical views associated with the most widespread religions will almost certainly be reflected in the laws enacted in a democracy. I don't think you have a theocracy unless the rules of a particular relgion are taken to be the laws of the state simply by virtue of the fact that they are the rules of that religion. And this will involve the rules being asserted authoritatively by the leaders of that religion, not the rules being accepted and internalised by citizens, and reflected in citizens' voting preferences.
volchitsa wrote: » Would you agree that this is a Christian belief, not shared by everyone . . .
volchitsa wrote: » . . . and that giving the beliefs of particular religions the force of law is at least heading towards theocracy?
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » The baby in the womb may never be born, but he or she possesses a stainless soul, and will be able to enter Heaven.
gallifreya wrote: I appreciate that a Christian view on when life begins will differ. However, would you at least consider that a foetus has only the potential to become a person? With all the will in the world.... a foetus may never be so. Spontaneous abortions happen naturally all the time, especially in the first trimester - why should a medical abortion be treated or considered any differently? My own view is that 12 weeks is a reasonable time limit for medical abortions. Bearing in mind that the foetus at this stage of development is not fully formed, not capable of feeling pain, does not have nervous system connectivity etc. Potential viability should be the benchmark and this could be fluid depending on medical advances.
J C wrote: There is a logical balance to the absolute prohibition on killing ... which is what a person can morally (and legally) do in self defense? Logically, all measures may be morally taken up to and including killing the agressor provided no other option is available.
J C wrote: » The first requirement for Child Benefit is that the child is born (and is costing you money maintaining them) ... that has no effect on their personhood. The law always had some leniency when it comes to abortion and indeed infanticide. Society recognises that women who act to kill their child are not as responsible for their actions as any other killing might be viewed. It is based on the fact that the normal/natural instinct of a mother is to love and protect her child and she effectively may be in a state of somewhat diminished responsiblity to do such a thing. Perhaps this is a residue of paternalism ... perhaps not ... but that is how the law operates. The law also recognises that a foetus is somewhat less developed than a newborn than an infant. Infanticide, for example, and its reduced legal penalties is confined to a mother who kills her baby ... a mother who killed her older child, would face a murder charge. All these facits of the law are practical and reasonable things IMO.
Gerry T wrote: » Sorry OP if this has been asked, I've just seen this thread. Anyway you say thou "shall not kill" which I get. But where did the"except" come from. I didn't think there was an except under any circumstances. Either you can kill or you can't. Or where am I going wrong? So if you think under a certain circumstances it's ok to kill, then why not abortion?
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » That's because unborn fetuses are not people. What's hard to understand about that? No one I know is pretending otherwise. Human rights apply to actual humans, not fetuses.
J C wrote: It means that you cannot kill yourself or another Human Being, except in self defence (or the defence of another Human Being) where no other option is available. This is the basis for all laws protecting the person and criminalising the killing of other people in Common Law Jurisprudence.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Please list what these exceptional situations are in your opinion
NuMarvel wrote: » I have to say, I've never heard a pregnant woman say "I'm with child". They're more likely to say "I'm expecting", which means the child isn't there yet.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » In the same concept that a microchip is a computer
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Sure, and it's an incorrect reason.
NuMarvel wrote: » The Supreme Court is due to hear a case about this next month, but I guess we can tell them not to bother, because Judge JC has already decided. :rolleyes: A foetus is not legally a person. If it were, then every pregnant women would be able to claim child benefit. Every miscarriage would have to have a death certificate issued. The act of an illegal abortion would have to be regarded as a homicide and have penalties of up to life imprisonment. So, no, a foetus is not legally a person. In future, please do some proper research before making wild claims about what the law says, because it's doing your argument absolutely no favours.
J C wrote: » I never shouted at you or anybody else. Shouting is using CAPITAL LETTERS ... embolding text is used for clarity and emphasis.
J C wrote: » And a newborn is called a baby ... but its still also a child. A pregnant woman is said to be 'with child' for a reason.:)
J C wrote: » They are technically children, at the foetal stage of development. ... and they are legally persons in this country, unless and until this status is stripped away from them by the removal of the 8th.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Nope, that's why a foetus is called a fetus and not a child and why the birth cert records the date of birth and not the date of conception.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » The emotional language you use doesn't (thankfully) change the facts.
