J C wrote: » 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.
DickSwiveller wrote: » he's completely blinded by his fanatical hatred of religion that he can't understand how ridiculous he sounds
antiskeptic wrote: » What is pro-choice thinking on this (aborting at a stage where life is viable outside the womb)? What has occurred such that the foetus inside the womb isn't a person and the same now-child outside the womb is a person?
Peregrinus wrote: » In short, I don't think the question raised in the OP has much application in the real world.
J C wrote: » 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'.
jc wrote: Please tell me, which of you would step up and kill her?
smacl wrote: » Actually Nick, the opening question was 'Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?', which is not the same as saying they're in favour of it. I would assert that many will vote pro-choice, to what ever degree they are allowed to by the question put to them in a ballot. Peregrinus' post on the first page covers this well. The answer to the OP is clearly yes, regardless of how you dress it up, or how other Christians on here such as the poster below would suggest that Christians who take this course aren't 'genuine' Christians.
Nick Park wrote: » 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).
SmacL wrote: Are these people not 'genuine Christians? 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. Anyone with even a basic grasp of Christian teaching understands that abortion is a grave wrong and can never be condoned.
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. Anyone with even a basic grasp of Christian teaching understands that abortion is a grave wrong and can never be condoned.
end of the road wrote: » from my limited knowledge of christianity, voting yes to repeal, which in turn would allow for unrestricted and on demand abortion, goes agains the teachings of the religion. compassion for the unborn is just as important as it is for others, therefore unless it is decided that abortion on demand won't be legislated for, then voting no to repeal is the only option to protect the unborn's right to life.
J C wrote: » Are you not the hypocrite for accusing the RCC of not treating your baby as a Christian child, when you would have accused them of prosletising, or a lot worse, if they had? If churches treat your right to believe what you wish with respect, do you not welcome that ? ... or is the RCC wrong in your eyes, no matter what they do?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » It's amazing how you can pretend to be Christian while also being insulting.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Certainly not - whether born or unborn. But that doesn't mean the RCC are not still utter hypocrites.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I would see that more as 200k women were not in a position to bring another child into the world. Maybe due to her age, existing children, finances, health, health of the foetus, FFA, domestic abuse, lack of familial/spousal support, or maybe she just didn’t want a child. I would justify it by saying that she took responsibility for her situation by dealing with her crisis in a way she saw fit. And that should be respected, regardless of which side of the argument you fall on. You see 200k ‘babies’, I see 200k women. I’m more worried about the living, breathing, sentient women who would have to parent these babies than the clump of cells that were aborted.
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?
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??
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. 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.
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.
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!!
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?
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.
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.
J C wrote: » So the accusations of Hotblack Desiato are actually unfounded.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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:
