Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Gerry T wrote: »

Why does she have to rear it, if she doesn't want to she can put it up for adoption. There's a very long list of couples waiting for a baby to love and care for.

Actually domestic adoption in this country is pretty much non existent, what we actually have is long term foster care.
You can only adopt in Ireland after long term fostering, and unfortunately the care system is such a mess that by the time the child has been fostered long enough, the majority of children have social, emotional and behavioral issues and become very hard to place. Nobody wants to adopt them then.
That’s why you’ll find the majority of parents looking to adopt do so internationally.

So you think the baby would prefer to be aborted than born and adopted.

Silly argument. How are we to know what a baby would or would not prefer?

The best interest of the child. There's that word again "want" the mother doesn't want to be pregnant. Well tough luck, your want is trumped by the baby's need.
Luckily for women, equality rights movements have secured great protections for working women. They can exit the workplace and have a baby, taking months out, full in the secure knowledge that their job is waiting for them. This should rule out many a reason given for abortion.

I believe the opinion/wants/needs of a living, breathing woman are far superior to that of a clump of cells that has potential to be human. I don’t feel forcing motherhood on someone is fair on the woman or the child.

What about women who don’t have a job? Or women who are experiencing domestic violence? Or women who can’t cope or afford any more children?
I agree equality rights have improved in recent years but that’s not the issue here. The issue is that there simply isn’t enough support from the government to justify forcing a woman to stay pregnant.

Its relevant if you expand on your point,it becomes a question as to when is a baby not a baby. As far as I'm concerned, its a baby straight after conception, and that will continue to develop for 18yrs (+/- some years) before it becomes an adult.
What has survival outside the womb got to do with it, silly argument. It can't survive alone outside the womb after a natural birth either. It doesn't change the fact that given a couple of months the baby will develop and remain a baby. At leat be honest and call it what it is, termination of a babys life.

Survival outside the womb has everything to do with it.
When it can survive outside the womb, the baby can be passed into state care/social services to be cared for by foster parents.
In the early stages of pregnancy, removal of the baby will result in a termination, because the baby simply cannot survive without the woman.
You are entitled to believe it is a child from the moment of conception but that doesn’t mean that you are right.
Develop is a key word in your reply here - it can develop into a baby.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Actually domestic adoption in this country is pretty much non existent, what we actually have is long term foster care.
You can only adopt in Ireland after long term fostering, and unfortunately the care system is such a mess that by the time the child has been fostered long enough, the majority of children have social, emotional and behavioral issues and become very hard to place. Nobody wants to adopt them then.
That’s why you’ll find the majority of parents looking to adopt do so internationally.

so we change the system. we do what we can to make it possible for parents in ireland to give a loving home to children in the care system here.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I believe the opinion/wants/needs of a living, breathing woman are far superior to that of a clump of cells that has potential to be human. I don’t feel forcing motherhood on someone is fair on the woman or the child.

the only time your point works is where the unborn puts the life of the mother in danger. other then that the unborn's right to life is equal to that of the mother.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

What about women who don’t have a job? Or women who are experiencing domestic violence? Or women who can’t cope or afford any more children?
I agree equality rights have improved in recent years but that’s not the issue here. The issue is that there simply isn’t enough support from the government to justify forcing a woman to stay pregnant.

agreed and that needs to change. allowing murder of the unborn won't bring that change however. in fact it will probably make it less likely.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Survival outside the womb has everything to do with it.

it doesn't really as the baby is still fully dependant on the mother for survival.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

When it can survive outside the womb, the baby can be passed into state care/social services to be cared for by foster parents.
In the early stages of pregnancy, removal of the baby will result in a termination, because the baby simply cannot survive without the woman.
You are entitled to believe it is a child from the moment of conception but that doesn’t mean that you are right.
Develop is a key word in your reply here - it can develop into a baby.

i think we can probably agree it's not a child from conception. however it is definitely a life, that is indisputable fact.

Gerry T wrote: »

I haven't moved the goal post, if a woman needs an abortion because of risk to her life (physical or mental), then yes that in my book is a priority. But if a woman only wants an abortion and the father wants the child then she should be compelled to carry it and let the father have sole custody.

It's like you read the Handmaid's Tale and thought "This is a good idea" :rolleyes:

WhiteRoses wrote: »

So you are in favour of taking away free will from grown adults?

Define free will?

Would you not have to get rid of all law to gain your kind of free will?

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

I'm afraid that the time has come.

They have short time left - 70 years for a generation - around 2035 maybe?

In 2016, 49% of the Irish women who had abortions in Britain were married or in a civil partnership. So any kind of suggestion that making people marry would eliminate or reduce the incidence of abortion is completely unrealistic. (Aside from the fact that suggesting we should make people marry for any reason is itself preposterous.)

NaFirinne wrote: »

How many of those people abstained from sex until married or in that partnership?

How is that relevant? What does being married have to do with anything?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How would you go about implementing and enforcing this ridiculous law?

How is any part of the constitution enforced?

The amounts of deaths happening in the world is almost doubled by abortion.

Wars , famine, disease, old age all kill less then abortion does.

The world would benefit with more christian focused people in the world who follow the ways that Christ has thought us.

The amount of abortions in the world is a disgrace.

This whole do anything you like as long as it doesn't hurt others is destroying society's.

Abortion is murder to a Christian -

Asking a christian do you support abortion is asking them to support murder.

A Christian cannot support murder.

Are you suggesting we punish women who have sex for pleasure outside of marriage? And punish those who get caught or get pregnant?

Because we actually used to do that for many years. They were called the Magdalene laundries and they actually destroyed more families than we’ll ever be able to comprehend.

Taking people’s civil liberties from them and going back to this prehistoric notion that people can only have sex while married would be a huge mistake.
I’d like to think as a society we’ve moved on a long way since those types of attitude were socially acceptable.

NaFirinne wrote: »

How is any part of the constitution enforced?

The amounts of deaths happening in the world is almost doubled by abortion.

Wars , famine, disease, old age all kill less then abortion does.

The world would benefit with more christian focused people in the world who follow the ways that Christ has thought us.

The amount of abortions in the world is a disgrace.

This whole do anything you like as long as it doesn't hurt others is destroying society's.

Abortion is murder to a Christian -

Asking a christian do you support abortion is asking them to support murder.

A Christian cannot support murder.

To change the constitution you would have to have a referendum, do you honestly think a referendum to ban sex befire marraige would even be proposed never mind passed?

As I said, a ridiculous idea.

J C wrote: »

Can we please talk about reality ... a 12 week old unborn child is unmistakably Human ... complete with functioning Brain, Heart, blood circulation system, arms, legs ... the works!!!
Its just a tiny tiny fully formed baby ... and all it needs to do is to grow ... exactly like all a newborn baby need to do is to grow.



It is no more a 'clump of cells' than you or I are a 'clump of cells'.

https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week

You clearly persist in posting that cartoon in an effort to emotionally blackmail me into feeling guilt for my position.
It won’t work. I am not pro abortion, I am pro women having bodily autonomy and control over their lives.
If the result is abortion then so be it.
I care about living women more than potential humans.

After Fianna Fail (Bertie, Cowen et al) oversaw (or at least were asleep at the wheel) leading the greatest financial crisis of our lifetime I swore I'd never EVER again even consider voting for them or giving any sort of credence to what they do or say but today's brave statement by Michel Martin where he so eloquently explained why, having taken the time to research the issue, he has now changed his mind and will be voting in favour of repealing the 8th.

I believe this to be a major milestone in building momentum for a successful repeal of the 8th as many many people who previously would have voted against repealing the 8th will now reassess their reasoning with many changing their position just like Mr Martin now has.

Regardless of what side you are on we should all take a couple of minutes to read this - https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/four-reasons-michel-martins-speech-on-abortion-is-significant-36505371.html

Having the leaders of all the main parties so publicly and articulately in favour of repealing the 8th is a major step forward!!

NuMarvel wrote: »

We don't enforce our current abortion laws. We haven't prosecuted anyone for an illegal abortion since the 60s or 70s. And even though the penalty has been reduced, there's no political or public appetite to bring another prosecution. We even went so far as to change our constitution to make sure we couldn't prosecute anyone who travelled.

So presumably, you'd want us to enforce your suggestion in the same way.

If only there was the appetite for it I'd be 100% in favour of having a referendum which gave voters two choices:-

1. Repeal the 8th as is being suggested.

2. Introduce a new amendment which made prosecuting any Irish citizen having an abortion regardless of whether that's within the Rep of Ireland or not.

That would truly test the appetite within the country for banning abortion. At the moment a large cohort can smugly pat themselves on the back for being protectors of the unborn yet all they have achieved is the export of abortion so in true NIMBY fashion they can raise their hands and declare "there's no on demand abortion here"!!

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's like you read the Handmaid's Tale and thought "This is a good idea" :rolleyes:

Have you a point to make or are you just throwing sarcastic comments about

Gerry T wrote: »

Have you a point to make or are you just throwing sarcastic comments about

Both.