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 However, as it is, the 8th amendment should be repealed to protect all women’s health regardless of whether they wish to continue with their pregnancy or not.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.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » It's amazing how you can pretend to be Christian while also being insulting.
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?
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.
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.
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.
jc wrote: Please tell me, which of you would step up and kill her?
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'.
Peregrinus wrote: » In short, I don't think the question raised in the OP has much application in the real world.
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?
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
J C wrote: » ... and Atheists are increasingly writing the laws I have to live by now ...
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.
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.
Delirium wrote: » Personally, I want abortion to be available as early into the pregnancy as possible. The 8th amendment means that women who have abortions abroad are having them later than if they could have it here. I wouldn't be on for abortion on request being available beyond 20 weeks max. Viability hits 20 to 35% at week 23. So as you can see I'm not in favour of aborting a viable foetus/child. Something like 80-90% of abortions happen before 13 weeks. Why focus on the minority of abortions to formulate laws? I haven't seen many (if any) pro-choice people arguing for late-term abortions regarding abortion on request tbh.
NuMarvel wrote: » The Journal did a fact check on this a while back and found that most of the countries they looked at only allow abortion after the point of viability in specified circumstances. They also found that abortions after this point represent a very small percentage of overall abortions, typically 1 to 2%, even in countries where there's no restrictions on abortion. EG, Canada's rate in 2014 was 2.4% after 21 weeks. Most abortions after the point of viability are for wanted pregnancies where something has gone wrong. I think our laws should recognise that and provide for that.
end of the road wrote: » no, lets call it what it actually is . 200,000 unborn Babies being killed. there is no getting around that fact, no matter how much one tries to dodge reality. killing the unborn is not taking responsibility for anything, it's killing the unborn. unless it is within an extreme circumstance then there is no justification for killing the unborn and such should not be and will not be respected, as is just and correct. the reality is those in favour of abortion on demand know they have no argument for their stance, so have to dehumanise the unborn and remind us how they only care about the living and breathing, dispite the fact the unborn is a form of life which has protections within the constitution. as you well know, this is an invalid argument put forward to dodge his question. sure, and the state needs to step up to the plate and help families in such a situation. allowing the killing of the unborn is not a valid option.
smacl wrote: » While I honestly don't know and can only speak for myself, I would imagine at a late stage in the pregnancy we'd be talking about a termination rather than an abortion and, as you candidly put it earlier, a baby rather than a foetus. You'd probably need to be a bit more specific about what exactly you mean by the term 'viable'.
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: » 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.
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.
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.
antiskeptic wrote: » Could you expand on your thinking here? Those in favour of abortion appear to centre their thinking on the non-personhood of the foetus, it being problematic to kill persons. What is it about viability outside the womb which transforms a non-person into a person? Viability appears to deal with mechanical issues of bodily function, rather than that which deals with personhood (a far slippier subject)
On % rates for viability at a particular point in time. You appear to be supposing foetuses as persons once viable, (although still in the womb). Wouldn't it be proper that abortions be halted (leaving aside the more limited late term justifications) at any % chance of viability? I mean, if we are killing persons at 17 weeks (assuming for the sake of argument that even 0.01% were found viable at that stage) then surely that's problematic?
There is more to be said if viability becomes the measure (for example, the advance of medical science such that viability is pushed back earlier and earlier) but your thoughts for now welcome.
Delirium wrote: » I haven't said viability defines personhood. Personally, you need a brain to be a person so that would put it prior to viability. I'm not a medical professional/scientist so I can't speak to when personhood precisely begins but I don't accept that the mere creation of an embryo is a person.
The earliest surviving foetus was at 21 weeks which is beyond the 20 weeks I'd have as a limit. A limit (for on request) that would roll back as science improves rates of survival earlier in the pregnancy.
To your 17 weeks example, the survival would have to be within the realms of the rate currently for 23 weeks, i.e. 20% minimum, for me to modify my personal limit back to 17 weeks.
antiskeptic wrote: » Personhood isn't something which lies within the remit of a medical professional to decide upon. It's a philosophical question rather than a medical one. Your philosophy might decide that it's a medical issue however. If viability is the line in the sand, but brain defines person, then you are okay with aborting persons (because they have a brain), pre-viability?
Okay (given viability your line in the sand) What is your basis for viability being the line in the sand? If it's not because it's considered a (viable) person then what is it? If it is because it is a person, then by setting a 20% rate you are deciding that 19.99 viable persons per hundred can be aborted.
BloodBath wrote: » The RCC is a bad joke. An evil murderous abusive organisation set up to take money and power from old superstitious idiots. I'm not attacking your beliefs but anybody that holds any respect for the RCC is a complete and utter moron who needs to start reading some history books. I find it amusing that you respect the RCC yet you think abortion is an abomination. What about the thousands of children in Ireland alone that they abused and let die or murdered or sold over the years? The people of Ireland, especially the women of Ireland, have had to put up with enough <snip> from the RCC. It's about time the real snakes of Ireland were driven out.
