Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

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.

Would you agree that this is a Christian belief, not shared by everyone, and that giving the beliefs of particular religions the force of law is at least heading towards theocracy?

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Would you agree that this is a Christian belief, not shared by everyone . . .

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.

volchitsa wrote: »

. . . and that giving the beliefs of particular religions the force of law is at least heading towards theocracy?

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.

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 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)

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.

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.

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.

Even if this is by common acclaim of the majority in the country who feel that the views of their religion are of course the correct ones.

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.

Fixed that for ya.

Also, if entering heaven where you presumably live happily ever after is the ultimate goal of a christian what's the big deal about fast tracking the process by a few years. If a fetus is a person with a stainless soul who gets a guaranteed spot in the happy ever after would a fetus, particularly in the early stages of development where there is no nervous system or ability to feel pain, not welcome the opportunity to get to heaven ASAP and avoid all the hassle of trying to live a good life to please god etc etc.??

Peregrinus

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

So that would be pretty well every country in the world, then?

Peregrinus wrote: »

It certainly is a religious belief; nearly all major religions condemn murder.

No it's not a belief though, it's an identifiable harm to known individuals. The fact that religions also include it in their list of Bad Things does not make it a religious belief.

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.

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.

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?

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

volchitsa wrote: »

No it's not a belief though, it's an identifiable harm to known individuals.

The harm is identifiable. The belief that, because of the harm, the act is wrong or bad or wicked is, well, a belief.

volchitsa wrote: »

The fact that religions also include it in their list of Bad Things does not make it a religious belief.

Well, can I ask what would make a belief 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.

People can argue that killing is right or wrong; in fact, we have the term "murder" for killings that we believe to be wrong, so you're relying on belief in the very act of using the word "murder". And you can certainly claim that a particular killing is bad or wrong according to your beliefs; in fact, that's the only rational basis on which you can make such an argument.

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.

We ban lots of things on the basis that they are "harmful to society", and while there's a distinction between those who will only recognise harm to identifiable individuals as a proper basis for legal bans versus those who will recognise harm to the community, that is certainly not a religious/nonn-religious distinction; it's an individualist/communitarian distinction.

It may be true that religious thinkers/believers are more likely to find themselves on the communitarian side of that particular debate - religions tend to emphasis communal relationships and the signficance of the community, and someone who is drawn to religion is also likely to be drawn to communitarian rather than individualistic thinking in politics. But that is not enough to make communitarian politics "theocratic".

You can't demonstrate theocracy simply by showing that a particular view, reflected in legislation, is held by religious people.

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.

Excellent post, it sums up my own feelings.
Particularly the last paragraph. People don't realise the serious implications the 8th has on maternity care and consent, and that's taking abortion totally out of the question. We're talking about pregnant women who are keeping their babies, here.
The substandard treatment women in this country receive due to the 8th amendment is a national disgrace.

NaFirinne

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

In a word, contraception. Freely available contraception for women of all ages who are sexually active which didn't impose a mortal sin on the user would be a good start but I don't expect that to get much traction in this thread :rolleyes:

EirWatchr

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.

"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

The eighth amendment does not subsume the rights of anyone to anyone else.
Both unborn and mother are stated as equal in right to live. Repealing it entirely *would* subsume the right of the unborn to the choices of others.

Repealing the eighth was never the only proposal on the table. Expanding the current medical provisions (as has been done successfully for the relatively few hard cases previously) was never given serious consideration this time - but full repeal was front-run as the expected, desirable solution by those with a different stated agenda than protection of mother's and preborn child's life - an agenda that requires societal acceptance of the denial of humanity to all unborn, which you've just subscribed to in your post above.

To take the position that all unborn do not have the status of personhood (which the full repeal - not alteration - of the eighth would signify) has the consequence that personhood (i.e. humanity) in law then becomes something that is conferred with the permission of some other person (or group of persons).

You only have to look to history or the state of affairs in other countries that have had abortion for decades to see the particular horror show (times thousands and eventually millions) that particular social more leads to.

NuMarvel

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.

I think the best people to say whether abortion has women's best interests at heart are women who have had abortions. And going by this article, it seems that the majority think their decision to have an abortion was the right one.

If you want to reduce or eliminate the incidence of abortion, then a ban isn't the way to do it. WHO research finds that regions with bans on abortion have similar abortion rates to those that don't. All bans do is make abortions unsafe. Our own experience backs up the ineffectiveness of bans. We've had one for nearly 160 years, yet we know for a fact that thousands of Irish women have abortions every year; either by travelling, ordering pills online, or other more extreme measures. And no one seems that interested in prosecuting or being able to stop them.

It's pointless supporting a measure that doesn't work, and actually increases the risks to pregnant women, whether they intend to have an abortion or not. The best interests of women are better served by looking at other measures, such as decreasing the incidence of crisis pregnancies in the first place.

EirWatchr wrote: »

To take the position that all unborn do not have the status of personhood (which the full repeal - not alteration - of the eighth would signify) has the consequence that personhood (i.e. humanity) in law then becomes something that is conferred with the permission of some other person (or group of persons).

Don't you understand that the status of personhood in law is already conferred by a another person or group of persons i.e. those who drafted and implemented the constitution?

What status in law is not granted or permitted by the drafting of legislation by "some other person"?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The harm is identifiable. The belief that, because of the harm, the act is wrong or bad or wicked is, well, a belief.

No, this is self evidently not true. Can you name a single organized society (i.e. not in the throes of collapse of some sort) in which their own definition of murder was considered morally neutral or even good?

The concept of murder as inherently harmful and needing to be prevented or sanctioned predates most existing religions. It certainly predates Christianity by many many centuries.

Well, can I ask what would make a belief a religious belief?

Concerning moral issues, it is one which is underpinned by religious texts but which unlike murder, is not necessarily shared by other equally moral (by their own understanding of that word, for simplicity) human societies.

Divorce for instance has been banned or tolerated, sometimes even forced, by different religious groups. Murder, as I say, never has, though of course some groups encourage "legal" killings, sanctioned by their religious texts. But then it's not murder.

People can argue that killing is right or wrong; in fact, we have the term "murder" for killings that we believe to be wrong, so you're relying on belief in the very act of using the word "murder". And you can certainly claim that a particular killing is bad or wrong according to your beliefs; in fact, that's the only rational basis on which you can make such an argument.

We ban lots of things on the basis that they are "harmful to society", and while there's a distinction between those who will only recognise harm to identifiable individuals as a proper basis for legal bans versus those who will recognise harm to the community, that is certainly not a religious/nonn-religious distinction; it's an individualist/communitarian distinction.

It may be true that religious thinkers/believers are more likely to find themselves on the communitarian side of that particular debate - religions tend to emphasis communal relationships and the signficance of the community, and someone who is drawn to religion is also likely to be drawn to communitarian rather than individualistic thinking in politics. But that is not enough to make communitarian politics "theocratic".

You can't demonstrate theocracy simply by showing that a particular view, reflected in legislation, is held by religious people.

Actually yes it is, because without those religious texts, reasonable people could come to a different moral opinion about the issue.

As I say, that's not the case for murder. It is, for abortion and divorce.

You seem to see theocracy as an all or nothing concept, but I said it was a step towards that, I wouldn't say that one single religion-based law,such as a ban on divorce or on contraception would suffice to describe a country as a theocracy.

But put a few of them together, and yes, you're getting there.

Mrs OBumble

J C wrote: »

The difference is that you will be personally approving all abortions that occur following the repeal of the 8th.

At present, you bear no moral responsibility for what other people are doing.

Nope.

I still think that in the vast majority of cases, abortion is not the least-harm approach, so is wrong.

And I'll have no more moral responsibility for the actions of women who do have abortions than the pilots, bus-drivers and postal-delivery workers who currently assist women to have abortions.

NuMarvel

EirWatchr wrote: »

To take the position that all unborn do not have the status of personhood (which the full repeal - not alteration - of the eighth would signify) has the consequence that personhood (i.e. humanity) in law then becomes something that is conferred with the permission of some other person (or group of persons).

You do realise that the thing that protects this supposed personhood, i.e. the 8th, was itself conferred with the permission of a group of people, aka voters in a referendum.

You can't complain about that mechanism just because it's doing something you don't like.

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.

I believe each woman in the world has her own best interests at heart when making decisions that will effect the course of the rest of her life.

She wants the best life for herself, physically, mentally, emotionally, financially, in every possible way.
I trust women to make the best decision for themselves. If that decision be abortion, well, so be it.

A law cannot cover every single eventuality and circumstance that we as humans find ourselves in.
Therefore I believe we should leave the decision up to the the person it impacts most: the mother, and if applicable, the father.

NaFirinne

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I believe each woman in the world has her own best interests at heart when making decisions that will effect the course of the rest of her life.

She wants the best life for herself, physically, mentally, emotionally, financially, in every possible way.
I trust women to make the best decision for themselves. If that decision be abortion, well, so be it.

A law cannot cover every single eventuality and circumstance that we as humans find ourselves in.
Therefore I believe we should leave the decision up to the the person it impacts most: the mother, and if applicable, the father.

This is not entirely correct.

There are women that feel that they have no choice but to go for abortion as they are encouraged to do so and not given viable alternatives

then when they have the abortion they regret it.

abortion is one of the most evil acts the world has yet to introduce.

The sheer numbers speak for itself.

NaFirinne wrote: »

This is not entirely correct.

There are women that feel that they have no choice but to go for abortion as they are encouraged to do so and not given viable alternatives

then when they have the abortion they regret it.

abortion is one of the most evil acts the world has yet to introduce.

The sheer numbers speak for itself.

You mustn't trust women if you feel they could be encouraged to go through with an abortion they don't want. I trust women to make an informed decision for themselves.

However, to play devils advocate, you could argue that the church and pregnancy support staff with a pro life agenda encourage women to keep babies they do not want.
In fact, there was a recent case where a support service that was meant to be impartial, advised an undercover journalist that if she were to have an abortion, she was at risk of breast cancer and of becoming a child abuser later in life.
It frightens me to think advice like this is given to vulnerable women having crisis pregnancies.

EirWatchr

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Don't you understand that the status of personhood in law is already conferred by a another person or group of persons i.e. those who drafted and implemented the constitution?

Yes. All statutory law is founded from prevalent social mores.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

What status in law is not granted or permitted by the drafting of legislation by "some other person"?

What Irish law currently gives an individual citizen, on their own, the legal power to permit or deny the status of personhood, and so confer humanity?

NaFirinne wrote: »

There are women that feel that they have no choice but to go for abortion as they are encouraged to do so and not given viable alternatives

How do you make sweeping statements like "there are women that feel they have no choice but to go for abortion" without referencing any sort of credible evidence in support of your statement?

If with the 8th amendment in place your statement is true how would retaining it help in any way?

I don't know a single person aged 15 to 45 who doesn't have a smartphone or access to an internet browser somewhere. What exactly is stopping women who have the ability to access info on abortion from having access to basic info on alternatives to abortion?

EirWatchr wrote: »

Yes. All statuary law is founded from prevalent social mores.

Excellent, so you agree that formal constitutional laws which govern society are man made and reflect the "prevalent social mores" so cannot therefore be set in stone forever as anything "prevalent" by definition changes and that is exactly what the process of removing the 8th amendment will achieve, just as amendments to allow divorce and marriage equality reflected the progressive social mores now (thankfully) prevalent in our increasingly enlightened society.

EirWatchr wrote: »

What Irish law currently gives an individual citizen, on their own, the legal power to permit or deny personhood?

AFAIK no Irish laws including the constitution refer in any way to the term "personhood" including the 8th amendment which grants a restricted/qualified right to life to the unborn "as far as practicable".

BTW, isn't it inconvenient for your argument how the 8th amendment which you and others are so keen to defend simply calls the fetus "the unborn" and doesn't use the incorrect and emotionally loaded term "child"?

Cabaal

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

In a word, contraception. Freely available contraception for women of all ages who are sexually active which didn't impose a mortal sin on the user would be a good start but I don't expect that to get much traction in this thread :rolleyes:

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

NuMarvel

NaFirinne wrote: »

This is not entirely correct.

There are women that feel that they have no choice but to go for abortion as they are encouraged to do so and not given viable alternatives

then when they have the abortion they regret it.

abortion is one of the most evil acts the world has yet to introduce.

The sheer numbers speak for itself.

The number of women who regret their abortion is less than 5%. So it is fair to say that women make the right decisions for their circumstances, because the vast majority who have abortions feel it was the right decision.

This doesn't preclude us from taking steps to reduce the number of women who regret their abortions or who feel they had no other choice, but banning abortion isn't a proportionate measure. And as I pointed it in my previous post, nor is it an effective one.

Cabaal

NaFirinne wrote: »

This is not entirely correct.

There are women that feel that they have no choice but to go for abortion as they are encouraged to do so and not given viable alternatives

then when they have the abortion they regret it.

abortion is one of the most evil acts the world has yet to introduce.

The sheer numbers speak for itself.

and there are many women that have abortions that don't regret it.

What you are proposing is "because some might be abused by the system means nobody should have access to health care". A rather silly outlook.

You can't apply a blanket viewpoint to abortion like that, its not a black and white issue neither are women's decisions to have abortions...its not that straight forward. There are numerous factors and several thousand shades of gray.

Your blanket viewpoint is as silly as saying all priests abuse children, the numbers speak for themselves and as such priests should be banned from going near children because they will abuse them.

Clearly not all priests abuse children, it would be idiotic to say so. If abuses "might" occur then the best process is to put checks in place to ensure a system cannot be abused with reporting etc.

At the end of the day, banning abortions in Ireland doesn't solve anything...it just exports the issue to the UK.

keano_afc

There's a great book called Birth Equality by Nick Park that I would recommend to everyone, not just Christians.

You don't have to be a person of faith to know that electively ending the life of a human being is wrong.