nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

J C

I don't believe that a Christian can morally vote for unlimited abortion.

The Sixth Commandment is very simple and very clear ... 'Thou shalt not kill'.

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.

Induced abortion is ethically and morally wrong ... except where the life of the mother is directly threatened and there is no other option available to save her.

This is the current law in Ireland.

Voting to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children is not something that any Christian (or other monotheist, indeed) can do in conscience and in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Nick Park

gallifreya wrote: »

Just to be upfront, my own view is that in pregnancy, all rights should rest with the Mother (unless she waives them in favour of the developing foetus) and said rights only have potential to become equal when the foetus attains viability. Currently, the 8th amendment pits asserted rights to life of the unborn (from implantation) directly in conflict with the rights of the pregnant woman. In maternity care, medical decisions and procedures are being made unilaterally in the best interests of the foetus (frequently without consultation or consent) which may be contrary to the wishes or best interests of a pregnant woman who is actually continuing with the pregnancy. At the moment it’s fine to favour a foetus over the physical health of a pregnant women – continuing with the pregnancy or medical intervention may save the foetus but in doing so leave the woman unable to walk for example. That’s without abortion even being a factor.

A Christian may never choose to avail of the proposed abortion legislation whatever the circumstances. However, as it is, the 8th amendment should be repealed to protect all women’s health regardless of whether they wish to continue with their pregnancy or not. This may never affect you but it could indeed harm, maim or kill a wife, lover, sister, daughter or friend that you care about. On the basis that the women affected may opt to terminate a pregnancy of their own free will, that women’s health, quality of life and wellbeing could be severely compromised by continuing with a pregnancy, that the proposed abortion timeframe is limited to 12 weeks, could a Christian vote yes out of compassion for others?

I think one of the main problems here is that if abortion is permitted for any reason, then very rarely are we talking about harming, maiming or killing anyone except the unborn child (and those rare cases are mostly covered by existing legislation).

The Guttmacher Institute, an American 'abortion rights group created by Planned Parenthood, surveyed over 1200 women in 2004 to discover why they had an abortion. Here are the top ten contributory reasons (the respondents were free to identify more than one reason):

Having a baby would dramatically change my life – 74%
Can’t afford a baby now – 73%
Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems – 48%
Unmarried – 42%
Would interfere with education – 38%
Would interfere with job / employment / career – 38%
Have completed my childbearing – 38%
Student or planning to study – 34%
Have other children or dependents – 32%
Not ready for a(nother) child – 32%

Now, none of these issues are trivial. I think all of us would see career and education as important facets of our lives. But would any of us deem any of those as being valid reasons to end a human life? I don't think so.

And there is the crux of the matter. Unless we are convinced that an unborn child is definitely not a human life with any measure of human rights whatsoever, then we have to conclude that, in the great majority of abortions, the harm caused by killing the unborn child is considerably greater than any evil averted by conducting the abortion.

So, once again it comes down to whether an unborn child is considered a human being or not. This is not primarily a religious issue. My own experience with expectant parents, or parents who endure miscarriages or stillbirths, has been that the majority, whether they are religious or not, viewed their unborn babies as human beings - not as potential yet-to-become human beings.

Nick Park

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Nope, I don't think that was the only point which was made.

I made and owenybaloney who was one of the christian posters you referred to confirmed based on his/her knowledge of christianity which he/she went to great lengths to proclaim for a couple of days, that christians who are wish to vote in favour of unlimited abortion can in fact do so and later be forgiven by god and welcomed into the glorious ever after etc etc providing they later genuinely repent and they can in fact even do this whilst currently knowing it would be "wrong" to vote in favour in the eyes of god yet go ahead and do so anyway for their own personal reasons whilst all along planning to later repent.

Which was why I said it depends upon how one defines oneself as a Christian. For someone who genuinely seeks to follow the example and teachings of Jesus, then committing an act which we believe to seriously wrong and saying, "Ah sure I can always ask forgiveness afterwards" is not a viable option.

J C

wrote:

J C
Legally in the UK, a Downs Syndrome child can be killed right up to birth.

Horrendous and outrageous !!!

Delirium
Any evidence to support this claim?

The appropriate current Law is Section 37 sub-section (d) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 ... which has no time limit on the Abortion of unborn children that "would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped."
... and children suffering from Downs Syndrome are considered to come under this sub-section.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/down-syndrome-fulfils-criteria-for-uk-abortion-36365911.html
In the case of unborn children with special need this has been the law since the introduction of Abortion in 1967.

Quote:-
37 Amendment of law relating to termination of pregnancy.
(1)For paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 1(1) of the M1Abortion Act 1967 (grounds for medical termination of pregnancy) there is substituted—
“(a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b)that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c)that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(d)that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.”

90% of Dignosed Downs Syndrome unborn childen are aborted in the UK ... in Iceland it's 100% for the past 5 years
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37500189

This is just horror building on horror i.e the horror of aborting of full term children with Downs Syndrome is building on the horror of aborting 'normal' children up to 24 weeks ... when they look like this:-
pregnancy-week-24-lung-development_square.jpg,qwidth=384.pagespeed.ce.1pi6mxwVSZ.jpg

pregnancy-week-24-lung-development_square.jpg,qwidth=384.pagespeed.ce.1pi6mxwVSZ.jpg

This is a CGI photo ... but it is a true representation of what a 24 week old unborn child looks like.
Many 24 week babies delivered by Caesarian Section (to preseerve the life of the baby and/or the mother) survive with modern medical techniques.
There is currently a 50-70% survival rate for babies born between 24 and 26 weeks.
Here is one such baby being cared for in intensive care in an incubator:-

Please tell me, which of you would step up and kill her?

... yet if she was a week younger ... and in her mother's womb, it would be legal to kill her in England ... if it were adjudged that her brothers and sisters might be at risk of injury to their mental health, if she were born !!!

You couldn't make it up !!!

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

To add to this, in 2016, only 21 abortions for Down's Syndrome were on or after the 24th week. That's less than 3% of abortions for DS, and 0.01% of all abortions in England & Wales.

'Only' 21 late abortions for Downs Syndrome!!
That is 21 too many.

NuMarvel wrote: »

In any case, it's all moot, because the Committee recommendations don't include disability as a ground for abortion in Ireland, and I don't see it likely that the Oireachtas would go beyond the recommendations when legislating after a referendum. Women who have abortions for this reason will continue to travel overseas, as at least 45 of them did in 2016.

They will ASAP after the 8th is removed ... we will rapidly move to the English law situation ... because one of the stated reasons for removing the 8th is to ensure that women don't 'have' to travel to England for abortions.
Do you not think that its an absolute scandal that Downs Syndrome children can be legally killed right up to Birth? ... but then its an absolute scandal that they (and every other child) can be killed up to 24 weeks on the flimsy legal excuse "that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family".
Why didn't they include the physical or mental health of the neighbour next door when they were at it???
I'm sure you could make a case, however flimsy, that a newborn child waking at night and crying could interefere with the neighbours mental health as well.

Outrageous is the only word for it!!!

This is the abortion regime in England ... that we are supposed to slavishly follow ... and to remove the 8th to facilitate.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

Only 21 late abortions for Downs Syndrome!!
That is 21 too many.

They will ASAP after the 8th is removed ... we will rapidly move to the English law ... because one of the stated reasons for removing the 8th is to ensure that women don't 'have' to travel to England for abortions.
Do you not think that its an absolute scandal that Downs Syndrome children can be legally killed right up to Birth ... but then its an absolute scandal that they (and every other child) can be killed up to 24 weeks on the flimsy legal excuse "that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family".
Why didn't they include the physical or mental health of the neighbour next door when they were at it???

This is the abortion regime in England ... that we are supposed to slavishly follow.

If you are so passionate about the protection of children with Down’s syndrome why don’t you go out and foster a couple of the many, many children stuck in the foster care system with the condition??

I think it’s more than reasonable that the welfare of the mother and the existing children is taken into account, seeing as they’ll be the ones directly affected by the arrival of a child with special/additional needs.
Not everyone can cope with the severe strain of bringing up a child with a disability.
My brother is disabled and I think my mother and father should be given sainthoods for what they’ve gone through. I know one of their biggest worries is what will happen to him when they’re gone. No parent should have those kinds of worries.
I can totally see why someone might feel abortion is a better option in those circumstances.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

They will ASAP after the 8th is removed ... we will rapidly move to the English law ... because one of the stated reasons for removing the 8th is to ensure that women don't 'have' to travel to England for abortions.

You mean like the way we moved "rapidly" to legislate after the X Case? Because that only took 20 years, 2 referendums, and an ECHR case.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

If you are so passionate about the protection of children with Down’s syndrome why don’t you go out and foster a couple of the many, many children stuck in the foster care system with the condition??

I didn't realise that this was the case. If I were to foster a child, I think the fact that s/he had Downs Syndrome wouldn't be of any significance ... they are such loving happy children !!!

... do you think it is acceptable to kill them all? ... as is currently happening in Iceland ... and rapidly getting there in England (with a 90% 'termination' rate for Downes Syndrome unborn children), the country whose abortion regime is being held up to us as a model to follow.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I think it’s more than reasonable that the welfare of the mother and the existing children is taken into account, seeing as they’ll be the ones directly affected by the arrival of a child with special/additional needs.
Not everyone can cope with the severe strain of bringing up a child with a disability.

I agree ... and society needs to do much more to help such families and children ... but killing them?? ... I genuinely think (hope) that we are much more civilised than that.
These children aren't 'life unworthy of life'. They may not be perfect Humans ... but then please show me somebody who is perfect.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

My brother is disabled and I think my mother and father should be given sainthoods for what they’ve gone through. I know one of their biggest worries is what will happen to him when they’re gone. No parent should have those kinds of worries.
I can totally see why someone might feel abortion is a better option in those circumstances.

That isn't our decision to make ... no more than born children, who can also cause us any number of problems, can/should be killed either.
The state needs to 'step up to the plate' to help families with vulnerable/ill members.
If we're unlucky, any one of us. may become a burden on our families and society, in our old age ... or even earlier, in an accident, for example.
Saving money by killing off people who cause us various levels of inconvenience is not something that any right-thinking person should support.

Anyway, the state of Ohio has begun rolling-back this savagery ... and on 22nd December 2017, Gov. John Kasich signed a bill into law that bans abortions after a foetal Down syndrome diagnosis is made.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/22/health/ohio-governor-signs-down-syndrome-abortion-ban/index.html
Quote:-
"Similar laws have passed in North Dakota and Indiana, though a federal judge blocked the Indiana law. The North Dakota law went into effect in 2013."

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

You mean like the way we moved "rapidly" to legislate after the X Case? Because that only took 20 years, 2 referendums, and an ECHR case.

That will actually be one of the arguments that will be used to ensure that we do move rapidly if the 8th is repealed.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Which was why I said it depends upon how one defines oneself as a Christian. For someone who genuinely seeks to follow the example and teachings of Jesus, then committing an act which we believe to seriously wrong and saying, "Ah sure I can always ask forgiveness afterwards" is not a viable option.

And what of someone who considers themselves Christian but doesn't agree with your point of view? As things stand, it seems that a majority are in favour of liberalising abortion laws. Most of these people are people who declared themselves Christian on the last census. Are these people not 'genuine Christians?

J C

gallifreya wrote: »

Just to be upfront, my own view is that in pregnancy, all rights should rest with the Mother (unless she waives them in favour of the developing foetus) and said rights only have potential to become equal when the foetus attains viability.

Why should any parent have an absolute right to kill their own child?
Just because it's somebody's child ... and its causing some (real or imagined) 'inconvenience', is no reason to kill them.

gallifreya wrote: »

Currently, the 8th amendment pits asserted rights to life of the unborn (from implantation) directly in conflict with the rights of the pregnant woman.

Its a balancing of the rights of the child with the rights of its mother ...and is thereby a piece of equality and child protection legislation.

gallifreya wrote: »

In maternity care, medical decisions and procedures are being made unilaterally in the best interests of the foetus (frequently without consultation or consent) which may be contrary to the wishes or best interests of a pregnant woman who is actually continuing with the pregnancy.

Both the child and mother should be cared for ... and where a conflict of care arises, the mother should be favoured. The mother should be told of all the legitimate options available to protect her and her child.

gallifreya wrote: »

At the moment it’s fine to favour a foetus over the physical health of a pregnant women – continuing with the pregnancy or medical intervention may save the foetus but in doing so leave the woman unable to walk for example. That’s without abortion even being a factor.

How can this situation develop? No reasonable person would think it would be acceptable to have to go through with a pregnancy that permanently disabled a woman. These hard cases can be legislated for ... but opening the floodgates to using abortion as a form of very late contraception is totally unacceptable.

gallifreya wrote: »

A Christian may never choose to avail of the proposed abortion legislation whatever the circumstances. However, as it is, the 8th amendment should be repealed to protect all women’s health regardless of whether they wish to continue with their pregnancy or not. This may never affect you but it could indeed harm, maim or kill a wife, lover, sister, daughter or friend that you care about.

Abortion isn't risk-free ... every year women are maimed or die (who wouldn't otherwise be maimed or die) as a direct result of abortion. Equally, killing your unborn child is something that can cause regret and mental suffering long after it is done.
Here are the stories of Irish women already hurt by abortion ... do we want to add to all this pain by removing the 8th?
http://womenhurt.ie/?page_id=150

gallifreya wrote: »

On the basis that the women affected may opt to terminate a pregnancy of their own free will, that women’s health, quality of life and wellbeing could be severely compromised by continuing with a pregnancy, that the proposed abortion timeframe is limited to 12 weeks, could a Christian vote yes out of compassion for others?

If it was a genuine compassionate act, I think that every Christian would vote for it in an instant ... but it isn't.
It obviously isn't a compassionate act for the unborn child whose life is ended in the procedure ... but, just as impotantly, it isn't really a compassionate act for the women involved either. They have to live with the thoughts of having killed their own children ... and that cannot be easy. I want to say that I'm not judging them ... they will do enough of that themselves.

Instead I would like to tell them that there is forgiveness and salvation after abortion. Here is Jane Roe (of Row v Wade) whose pro-abortion Supreme Court Case introduced abortion into every state in the United States in 1973 ... which she says was the biggest mistake of her life.
She is now a Saved Christian and one of the foremost pro-life activists in the United States.

She is now campagning to reverse her own case to remove abortion on demand in the US.

J C

smacl wrote: »

And what of someone who considers themselves Christian but doesn't agree with your point of view? As things stand, it seems that a majority are in favour of liberalising abortion laws. Most of these people are people who declared themselves Christian on the last census. Are these people not 'genuine Christians?

They're genuine Christians ... but the debate hasn't even started yet ... and nobody knows how anyone is actually thinking.
It also isn't for nothing that Leo Varadkar is warning that what is actually put to the people will be vital, if it is to be passed.

volchitsa

@ J_C

Norma Jean McCorvey isn't campaigning for anything, she's been dead for at least a year. And more to the point, she didn't have an abortion, she had the baby and it was taken from her, like the two or maybe three children she'd had before that.

She was a very tragic woman, but it wasn't abortion that harmed her. In fact she may well have been happier if she'd had one or maybe more abortions instead of going through the trauma she did.

As for Women Hurt, they're the mysterious group that put up an American (male) ex abortionist doctor to talk in their names to the Citizens Assembly.

Anyone else see the irony there?

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

@ J_C

Norma Jean McCorvey isn't campaigning for anything, she's been dead for at least a year. And more to the point, she didn't have an abortion, she had the baby and it was taken from her, like the two or maybe three children she'd had before that.

She was a very tragic woman, but it wasn't abortion that harmed her. In fact she may well have been happier if she'd had one or maybe more abortions instead of going through the trauma she did.

I didn't realise that Norma died ... I must have missed it at the time.
Anyway, she was an amazing woman ... who became the woman whose case for abortion introduced unlimited abortion into the United States in 1973. She then worked at an abortion Clinic ... but she eventually became one of the greatest pro-life advocates in America. Its a tough thing to be responsible for opening the floodgates to 50 million abortions (which Norma's case did) ... but she has been forgiven and is now at peace safe in the arms of Jesus Christ ... who is far better.
Here is her story as written in her Obituary in the IT from last February.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/obituary-norma-mccorvey-1.2987883

volchitsa wrote: »

As for Women Hurt, they're the mysterious group that put up an American (male) ex abortionist doctor to talk in their names to the Citizens Assembly.

Anyone else see the irony there?

Yes, there is irony there at many levels ... has Ireland really reached the point that a former abortionist has to beg them to not open the floodgates to abortion here?
Anyway, if that a former abortionist doctor and a number of women hurt by abortion are talking about abortion, it is worth listening to them to bring some balance to the current abortion debate.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

That will actually be one of the arguments that will be used to ensure that we do move rapidly if the 8th is repealed.

Yeah, cause the first thing TDs will want to do after going through the whole process of abortion legislation is do it all over again... :rolleyes:

Nick Park

WhiteRoses wrote: »

If you are so passionate about the protection of children with Down’s syndrome why don’t you go out and foster a couple of the many, many children stuck in the foster care system with the condition??

Ah, here we go with this bogus argument.

Let's extend this logic a bit further.

1. Not prepared to put up a Rohinga in your spare bedroom? How dare you argue that they shouldn't be deported back too Myanmar!

2. Not prepared to house a homeless person? Then don't criticise government housing policy!

3. Not prepared to be there 24 hours a day for a teenage prostitute escaping people trafficking? Then shut up with any campaigning against sexual slavery.

The fact is that every citizen in this land has the right to object to the prospect of discriminatory abortion on the grounds of race, gender or disability. JC, if you think such practices are wrong then you are perfectly within your rights to say so, and don't be intimidated by the bluster of those who try to shut down legitimate debate by pretending you have no right to do so unless you are fostering children.

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yeah, cause the first thing TDs will want to do after going through the whole process of abortion legislation is do it all over again... :rolleyes:

Maybe ... maybe not.
Either way, it will be only a matter of time before we would move to something very like the current English Abortion Model ... because we certainly couldn't have any woman still going to England for any abortion ... if the 8th is gone !!

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

And what of someone who considers themselves Christian but doesn't agree with your point of view? As things stand, it seems that a majority are in favour of liberalising abortion laws.

If such Christians don't agree with my point of view then they are presumably capable of speaking for themselves, and voting according to their consciences.

As things stand, it seems that a majority are in favour of liberalising abortion laws. Most of these people are people who declared themselves Christian on the last census.

It is far from clear that a majority of the population, let alone a majority of those who profess to be Christians, are in favour of unlimited abortion (which, remember, is what we are discussing - not some vague liberalisation).

Are these people not 'genuine Christians?

As for whether people are 'genuine Christians' - there are many different ways of defining Christians. Richard Dawkins describes himself as a Christian (albeit a secular or cultural one). I was careful to stress that I was referring to those who genuinely seek to follow the teachings and example of Jesus.

DickSwiveller

No. Life is sacred. Do you even have to ask this question?

Hotblack Desiato

Nick Park wrote: »

So, once again it comes down to whether an unborn child is considered a human being or not. This is not primarily a religious issue. My own experience with expectant parents, or parents who endure miscarriages or stillbirths, has been that the majority, whether they are religious or not, viewed their unborn babies as human beings - not as potential yet-to-become human beings.

You don't speak for me, or my wife. We have two lovely children, but we had (that we know of, possibly more) five pregnancies. The three we lost between the two live births at an early stage were not regarded as human by the 'catholic' hospital we went to. We were not offered a funeral or a death certificate. We were not offered counselling. We were told to shrug our shoulders and try again - and we did - but we were under no illusion whatsoever that this 'catholic' hospital regarded a miscarried pregnancy at 8 weeks as anything other than a non-entity that goes down the drain with as little drama as possible.

The utter hypocrisy stinks, and stinks badly.

Yes we didn't regard them as human beings either, but they were potential human beings. That's not to say that the loss of that potential was not regretted - but potential thing isn't the same as actual thing and the 'catholic hospital' didn't for one second regard the miscarriages as human beings.

The irony is that if any of those three potential human beings had made it, the son I have now wouldn't have been conceived never mind born. I wouldn't swap him for the unknown potential of any of those three embryos we, not by choice, lost.

DickSwiveller

smacl wrote: »

And what of someone who considers themselves Christian but doesn't agree with your point of view? As things stand, it seems that a majority are in favour of liberalising abortion laws. Most of these people are people who declared themselves Christian on the last census. Are these people not 'genuine Christians?

No, they are not. Most people in Ireland are Laissez faire Christians who would rather go shopping than go to mass. They are completely ignorant of the teachings of the church and have no interest in learning about them. Anyone with even a basic grasp of Christian teaching understands that abortion is a grave wrong and can never be condoned.

DickSwiveller

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You don't speak for me, or my wife. We have two lovely children, but we had (that we know of, possibly more) five pregnancies. The three we lost between the two live births at an early stage were not regarded as human by the 'catholic' hospital we went to. We were not offered a funeral or a death certificate. We were not offered counselling. We were told to shrug our shoulders and try again - and we did - but we were under no illusion whatsoever that this 'catholic' hospital regarded a miscarried pregnancy at 8 weeks as anything other than a non-entity that goes down the drain with as little drama as possible.

The utter hypocrisy stinks, and stinks badly.

Yes we didn't regard them as human beings either, but they were potential human beings. That's not to say that the loss of that potential was not regretted - but potential thing isn't the same as actual thing and the 'catholic hospital' didn't for one second regard the miscarriages as human beings.

The irony is that if any of those three potential human beings had made it, the son I have now wouldn't have been conceived never mind born. I wouldn't swap him for the unknown potential of any of those three embryos we, not by choice, lost.

Are you confused? Your comment makes absolutely no sense. You're complaining on the one hand that the 'Catholic Hospital' didn't recognize the miscarriages as the death of a child; but then you yourself say that you don't regard them as children. So, what's your problem? Presumably if the hospital had recognised them as a loss of human life you would be up in arms moaning that the hospital were insensitive.

J C

Nick Park wrote: »

Ah, here we go with this bogus argument.

Let's extend this logic a bit further.

1. Not prepared to put up a Rohinga in your spare bedroom? How dare you argue that they shouldn't be deported back too Myanmar!

2. Not prepared to house a homeless person? Then don't criticise government housing policy!

3. Not prepared to be there 24 hours a day for a teenage prostitute escaping people trafficking? Then shut up with any campaigning against sexual slavery.

The fact is that every citizen in this land has the right to object to the prospect of discriminatory abortion on the grounds of race, gender or disability. JC, if you think such practices are wrong then you are perfectly within your rights to say so, and don't be intimidated by the bluster of those who try to shut down legitimate debate by pretending you have no right to do so unless you are fostering children.

Thanks Nick ... and all very true.

In fact, isn't it ironic that all of the progress made in Irish society over recent years with equality legislation on the grounds of age and disability is now proposed to not apply to our weakest and most vulnerable ... our unborn children.
Equally, women have (correctly) benefitted most from equality legislation and now the feminist movement are spearheading the campaign to deny any equality rights to unborn children ... and specifically to remove their equality rights that are already enshrined in the Constitution ... their right to life itself, I might add.

The 8th Amendment stands as a beacon of enlightment for equality and child welfare as well as the rights of pregnant women to the maximum practical care from the state.

It is something that is unique in the World ... and something that the Irish people should be particulary proud of.

J C

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Are you confused? Your comment makes absolutely no sense. You're complaining on the one hand that the 'Catholic Hospital' didn't recognize the miscarriages as the death of a child; but then you yourself say that you don't regard them as children. So, what's your problem? Presumably if the hospital had recognised them as a loss of human life you would be up in arms moaning that the hospital were insensitive.

We lost a baby through miscarriage some years back ... and the hospital couldn't have been nicer ... the baby was placed in a tiny coffin and was blessed by a clergyman and we brought him home and a short commendation service was held at his burial in our family grave plot.
Like you say, if parents want it, all churches will give unborn children who die, a dignified Christian burial.
So the accusations of Hotblack Desiato are actually unfounded.

Contrast the dignified laying to rest of our little child, to await the ressurrection of his body to everlasting bliss ... with how thousands of aborted and miscarried unborn children were treated in England.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/aborted-babies-incinerated-to-heat-uk-hospitals/

When a society loses respect for life ... it can also lose respect for death.

Hotblack Desiato

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No, they are not. Most people in Ireland are Laissez faire Christians who would rather go shopping than go to mass. They are completely ignorant of the teachings of the church and have no interest in learning about them.

In that case shouldn't we stop wasting valuable teaching hours trying to stuff catholic dogma down the unwilling throats of so many young children? Shouldn't it be reseved for the children of those who actually believe in it?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Are you confused? Your comment makes absolutely no sense. You're complaining on the one hand that the 'Catholic Hospital' didn't recognize the miscarriages as the death of a child; but then you yourself say that you don't regard them as children. So, what's your problem? Presumably if the hospital had recognised them as a loss of human life you would be up in arms moaning that the hospital were insensitive.

If it wasn't obvious enough for you, the problem is the utter hypocricy of the Roman Catholic Church - which insists that the laws of this country must reflect their view that personhood begins at conception - compared to the attitude of 'catholic ethos' hospitals to those 'persons', or in their actual view, non-persons, who don't progress past the first trimester.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

So the accusations of Hotblack Desiato are actually unfounded.

It's a truth you are unwilling to face. You have no right to designate the suffering of my family as 'lies' and it paints you and your so-called 'christianity' in a pretty poor light.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's a truth you are unwilling to face. You have no right to designate the suffering of my family as 'lies' and it paints you and your so-called 'christianity' in a pretty poor light.

Did you wish to have a Christian blessing for your child ?
Did you wish to have a Christian burial for your child?

Hotblack Desiato

Certainly not - whether born or unborn.

But that doesn't mean the RCC are not still utter hypocrites. You know, that church you and I are not members of but still wrote many of the laws we have to live by. The 8th amendment is an RCC imposition.

But yeah, good dodge.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In that case shouldn't we stop wasting valuable teaching hours trying to stuff catholic dogma down the unwilling throats of so many young children? Shouldn't it be reseved for the children of those who actually believe in it?

That's a whole different debate ... being aired extensively over on the A & A ... a place where I can't post.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If it wasn't obvious enough for you, the problem is the utter hypocricy of the Roman Catholic Church - which insists that the laws of this country must reflect their view that personhood begins at conception - compared to the attitude of 'catholic ethos' hospitals to those 'persons', or in their actual view, non-persons, who don't progress past the first trimester.

I think that the RCC certainly has been found to have 'feet of clay' on many issues ... but there surely comes a point when kicking somebody or some thing when they are down becomes unseemly and counter productive for the 'kickers'.
I would suggest that this time has now come for the 'kickers' of the RCC.
Start 'building a bridge ... and get over it'.

We now live in a post-Catholic Ireland ... but we certainly don't live in a Utopia ... sure we have made some progress from the past ... but we have lost plenty too ... including, to at least some degree, our awe and respect for Human Life.
We should be very careful to not throw out the good with the bad ... or dare I say it, given our current topic ...
... we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater!!

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

That's a whole different debate ... being aired extensively over on the A & A ... a place where I can't post.

I think that the RCC certainly has been found to have 'feet of clay' on many issues ... but there surely comes a point when kicking somebody or some thing when they are down becomes unseemly and counter productive for the 'kickers'.
I would suggest that this time has now come for the 'kickers' of the RCC.
Start 'building a bridge ... and get over it'.

We now live in a post-Catholic Ireland ... but we certainly don't live in a Utopia ... sure we have made some progress from the past ... but we have lost plenty too ... including, to at least some degree, our awe and respect for Human Life.
We should be very careful to not throw out the good with the bad ... or dare I say it, given our current topic ...
... we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater!!

It's amazing how you can pretend to be Christian while also being insulting.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Certainly not - whether born or unborn.

But that doesn't mean the RCC are not still utter hypocrites. You know, that church you and I are not members of but still wrote many of the laws we have to live by. The 8th amendment is an RCC imposition.

But yeah, good dodge.

I'm sure that the RCC supports the 8th ... but it is far from unique in doing so.
Most monotheists support the right to life of unborn children ... and indeed some Atheists also do so, for Humanitarian reasons.
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

... and Atheists are increasingly writing the laws I have to live by now ... and if they are just and make sense, I have no problem with living by them either.