Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

J C · 18-01-2018 10:38PM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

You make it sound like it could survive at 12 weeks which you know it can't, right?

A newborn child also cannot survive without a substantive input of direct care and love.

Indeed, the input of care actually rises substantially when a child is born.

... and if the benchmark for legitimising the killing of somebody is to be their survival ability on their own ... then every patient in Hospital, every newborn child and every person with special needs will have their lives on the line ... in this pseudo-liberal and pseudo-compassionate world, that the abortion and eugenics lobby is trying to construct.

Delirium · 18-01-2018 10:57PM

The input of care rises in requirement from that of being biologically attached to a person for 9 months? seriously?

Gerry T · 18-01-2018 11:13PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Both.

Well I don't see how you figure that I want to control women for my own pleasure. I would say of myself that I'm not sexist, that men and women should be treated equally in all regards, but that doesn't make us the same. Men are better at some things and likewise women are better at other things.

With regard to this topic its not that simple, it involves 3 people. When a woman gets pregnant that affects both parents, if a child is born the parents have a responsibility to at a minimum to support that child. Its also my opinion that the mothers wants are way behind the need for that child to be born. Getting pregnant carries responsibilities, which shouldn't be walked away from.

I do understand others arguments stating that what is aborted is not a person, I don't agree with that. I'm open to hear why someone would think that, but even if I was convinced it wouldn't change anything.
A wild swallowtail butterfly is protected in the UK and by law can't be killed, sold etc... by your argument its larva stage wouldn't qualify as a butterfly so can be killed. I disagree.

J C · 18-01-2018 11:48PM

Delirium wrote: »

The input of care rises in requirement from that of being biologically attached to a person for 9 months? seriously?

Yes there is practically no care required until a child is born ... everything proceeds quietly and automatically with little or no conscious input required from the pregnant mother.
... then the baby is born ... and there is a free-willed being crying for attention, having to be fed at all hours of the day and night ... and requiring nappy changing, clothing and constant monitoring and love.
Its a full-time job !!!
... whereas before the birth, in most cases, the mother could hold down a full time job with relatively little difficulty, in many cases up to and beyond the seventh month.

Nick Park · 18-01-2018 11:54PM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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"!!

That's the spirit!

Why let people vote for things they actually believe in? Force them to choose between two bad options which both violate human rights.

pilly · 18-01-2018 11:54PM

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. She of course should contribute to the cost of raising the child, means tested. I then went on to say it also makes sense if the reason for the abortion is only a "want" then the mother should carry the child and then give it up for adoption.

So how about if a woman wants the baby and the man doesn't? Should she be compelled to have an abortion?

For your argument to work it has to go both ways.

Delirium · 18-01-2018 11:56PM

J C wrote: »

Yes there is practically no care required until a child is born ... everything proceeds quietly and automatically with little or no conscious input required from the pregnant mother.
... then the baby is born ... and there is a free-willed being crying for attention, having to be fed at all hours of the day and night ... and requiring nappy changing, clothing and constant monitoring and love.
Its a full-time job !!!
... whereas before the birth, the mother could hold down a full time job with little or no difficulty, in many cases up to and beyond the seventh month.

No care?? There's a biological connection required for survival. That's beats changing diapers any day of the week!

pilly · 18-01-2018 11:58PM

J C wrote:

It is an accurate and anatomically correct representation of a 12 week old unborn child.

Total lie.

Hannibal_Smith · 19-01-2018 12:00AM

Christians have done such horrific things to actual living things, why have an issue with abortion?

Hannibal_Smith · 19-01-2018 12:03AM

J C wrote: »

Very interesting ... and an amazing testimony from this woman, who had an abortion.

It proves that abortion certainly isn't the panacea that the abortion lobby would like us to think that it is, for vulnerable pregnant women.

... and, of course it always results in the needless death of an unborn child.

Good to see that this women has had a good life since she recovered from the trauma and deep regrets that her abortion caused ... by accepting the forgiveness of Jesus Christ ... and becoming a Christian.

Pro abortion lobby...does it have to be an us vs them scenario? Can we all not remember the humanity at the centre of it all and just vote they way you want, without slinging mud at the other?

Gerry T · 19-01-2018 12:12AM

pilly wrote: »

So how about if a woman wants the baby and the man doesn't? Should she be compelled to have an abortion?

For your argument to work it has to go both ways.

If either wants the baby then they should get it. If neither want it then put it up for adoption. I don't think there should be a termination unless there is a risk to the mothers health (physical or mental). I could be persuaded if the baby was severely disabled in some way, where its life would be painful or the child would be in a vegetable state then yes termination would make sense.
The point about the male partner is he may really want and love the child, if the mother had sole choice she could terminate his child...how would that sit with you if the father could terminate the mothers child.

PopePalpatine · 19-01-2018 01:07AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

I'd imagine it'd be some bastard child of Da'esh, the Stasi and Catholicism.

Hotblack Desiato · 19-01-2018 03:39AM

Nick Park wrote: »

Fifthly, I wouldn't swap my 29-year old daughter for the child that was miscarried earlier in our marriage. I wouldn't swap her for my other daughter who died at 4 years of age. I wouldn't swap her for anyone. But, of course, none of that has any bearing on who we should or should not grant human rights to.

I'm truly sorry for your loss Nick. And I hope that you and your family have come to a place of acceptance (we must eventually come to accept the things we cannot change, after all, however horrible they may be.)

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. You have your reasons to support your position, and I have mine. The people will vote, let's not diss them regardless of the position they choose. What I'm worried about is what extremists outside the state may do.

54and56 · 19-01-2018 08:36AM

Nick Park wrote: »

That's the spirit!

Why let people vote for things they actually believe in? Force them to choose between two bad options which both violate human rights.

So you prefer a situation where on demand abortion is illegal but there are no consequences for breaking the law by taking an unborn who has the protection of the Irish constitution and having it aborted in England.

That makes perfect sense!!

54and56 · 19-01-2018 08:39AM

Delirium wrote: »

No care?? There's a biological connection required for survival. That's beats changing diapers any day of the week!

Of ALL the things said in this discussion, THIS ^^^ is by far the most offensive and ill thought through by far. When exactly did we start calling nappies "diapers"???

J C · 19-01-2018 08:53AM

Delirium wrote: »

No care?? There's a biological connection required for survival. That's beats changing diapers any day of the week!

How does carrying a baby, during which everything generally proceeds quietly and automatically with little or no conscious input required from the pregnant mother ... 'beat' the very serious input of time and effort involved in looking after a newborn baby.

Unless some serious medical complication arises, pregnancy proceeds smoothly and without any substantive issues.

54and56 · 19-01-2018 09:06AM

J C wrote: »

How does carrying a baby, during which everything generally proceeds quietly and automatically with little or no conscious input required from the pregnant mother ... 'beat' the very serious input of time and effort involved in looking after a newborn baby.

Unless some serious medical complication arises, pregnancy proceeds smoothly and without any substantive issues.

Wow!! I'm not going to pretend to speak on behalf of women who have been pregnant but having lived through it with my wife on several occasions I'm of the view that nothing whatsoever about being pregnant is either quiet or automatic!! I witnessed a woman in all kinds of discomfort who had to refrain from certain activity and basically devote herself to being as good a foetus carrier as possible.

Saying the process is quiet and automatic makes it sound like its a walk in the park comparable to letting your hair grow. Have you or your partner ever been pregnant?

eviltwin · 19-01-2018 10:19AM

NaFirinne wrote: »

Have a listen to this very Interesting interview

http://www.spiritradio.ie/louises-story/

And?

eviltwin · 19-01-2018 10:22AM

J C wrote: »

How does carrying a baby, during which everything generally proceeds quietly and automatically with little or no conscious input required from the pregnant mother ... 'beat' the very serious input of time and effort involved in looking after a newborn baby.

Unless some serious medical complication arises, pregnancy proceeds smoothly and without any substantive issues.

Obviously you've never been pregnant.

Even in the easiest of pregnancies it becomes the essence of your entire physical and mental state. It's a huge emotional and psychological investment.

Nick Park · 19-01-2018 10:37AM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

So you prefer a situation where on demand abortion is illegal but there are no consequences for breaking the law by taking an unborn who has the protection of the Irish constitution and having it aborted in England.

That makes perfect sense!!

It does make perfect sense if you take human rights treaties seriously. The right to travel is guaranteed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I, and many other people, believe that our country should not be complicit in the taking of human life and should, as far as practicable, defend the right to life of the unborn child.

Removing the human right of freedom of movement is not practicable. You do not promote one person's human rights by restricting another person's human rights. This is why, for example, most of us see torture as unacceptable even if it purports to save lives.

I realise that there are those (active in this thread) who want to portray concern for one group's human rights as somehow not caring for another group of people. That is bogus.

My position is to seek a state of affairs that respects the human rights of all, and to do so in a way that is educational and compassionate rather than punitive or judgemental. You are free to disagree with me, but you betray your own intolerance when you advocate a denial of my democratic right to vote for options that express my views.

Your proposal, in seeking to force people to choose between two bad options is, sadly, typical of the confrontational approach that wants the debate over the 8th amendment to be one of misrepresentation, name-calling and intolerance.

Nick Park · 19-01-2018 10:40AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm truly sorry for your loss Nick. And I hope that you and your family have come to a place of acceptance (we must eventually come to accept the things we cannot change, after all, however horrible they may be.)

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. You have your reasons to support your position, and I have mine. The people will vote, let's not diss them regardless of the position they choose. What I'm worried about is what extremists outside the state may do.

Thank you, the death of my daughter was a long time ago, but it was formative in my views about the value of human life (even when limited by severe disability).

I agree that we shouldn't diss people because they hold different views on the subject of the 8th amendment - but I think that is a forlorn hope. Just look at the bile released in this thread (from people on both sides) towards others who hold different views.

54and56 · 19-01-2018 11:15AM

Nick Park wrote: »

It does make perfect sense if you take human rights treaties seriously. The right to travel is guaranteed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I, and many other people, believe that our country should not be complicit in the taking of human life and should, as far as practicable, defend the right to life of the unborn child.

If you truly believed that you would have no issue with the country preventing people travelling to have an abortion just as the country currently prevents people from travelling if they know they are on their way to commit a murder, smuggle drugs or join ISIS etc.

Next time someone is stopped at the airport on their way to commit a crime all they need say to the Gardai is "No, you can't stop me because I read on a Boards thread a comment by Nick Park who knows loads about stuff that the freedom to travel means you can't stop me on my way to commit a crime"

Nick Park wrote: »

Removing the human right of freedom of movement is not practicable. You do not promote one person's human rights by restricting another person's human rights.

Are you familiar with the concept of "attempt" in criminal law?

"attempted offenses occur when an individual has an actual intent to commit a crime (in legal terms, specific intent), and takes direct action toward completion of the crime."

If you are travelling to England to have an abortion you are attempting to commit an offence as the constitution is currently framed. The right to travel, like the right to freedom is subject to you not being engaged in or have intent to commit a criminal act.

Do you still think we should have a law which prohibits abortion on demand but through lack of enforcement all it does is add the cost of return flights and some significant personal inconvenience to the process thus enabling women with complete carte blanche to travel to England to have their abortion without any fear whatsoever of any consequence on their return?

Nick Park wrote: »

You are free to disagree with me, but you betray your own intolerance when you advocate a denial of my democratic right to vote for options that express my views.

You do like to make a lot of stuff up don't you?

Nick Park wrote: »

Your proposal, in seeking to force people to choose between two bad options is, sadly, typical of the confrontational approach that wants the debate over the 8th amendment to be one of misrepresentation, name-calling and intolerance.

So your suggestion is that the choice should be abortion on demand in Ireland is unlawful but if you want to have one you can as there are no consequences providing that in one of your most stressful times of need and support you take a flight over to England where you can find your way in a strange city to a clinic you've never been to before where people you've never met before will carry out the abortion after which you'll have to fly back to Ireland because that way we can say this is a country of christian values and there's no on demand abortion here.

Nice.

Nick Park · 19-01-2018 11:29AM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

If you truly believed that you would have no issue with the country preventing people travelling to have an abortion just as the country currently prevents people from travelling if they know they are on their way to commit a murder, smuggle drugs or join ISIS etc.

Next time someone is stopped at the airport on their way to commit a crime all they need say to the Gardai is "No, you can't stop me because I read on a Boards thread a comment by Nick Park who knows loads about stuff that the freedom to travel means you can't stop me on my way to commit a crime"

I believe people should have the freedom to travel. I am entitled to hold that belief.

As far as I'm aware, my opinion carries the same weight as any other person's opinion. Next time someone is stopped at the airport they can quote any private individual's opinion as much as they want. Are you really that desperate to avoid a discussion that you need to engage in that kind of nonsense?

If you are travelling to England to have an abortion you are attempting to commit an offence as the constitution is currently framed. The right to travel, like the right to freedom is subject to you not being engaged in or have intent to commit a criminal act.

That's not the view of the courts. But you are free to claim you know better than them.

You do like to make a lot of stuff up don't you?

I'm not making anything up. You advocated a referendum with two options, neither of which I would agree with.

But, since you mention making things up ....

So your suggestion is that the choice should be abortion on demand in Ireland is unlawful but if you want to have one you can as there are no consequences providing that in one of your most stressful times of need and support you take a flight over to England where you can find your way in a strange city to a clinic you've never been to before where people you've never met before will carry out the abortion after which you'll have to fly back to Ireland because that way we can say this is a country of christian values and there's no on demand abortion here.

I have never said that this is a country of christian values.

Please stop lying.

Gerry T · 19-01-2018 11:33AM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

So your suggestion is that the choice should be abortion on demand in Ireland is unlawful but if you want to have one you can as there are no consequences providing that in one of your most stressful times of need and support you take a flight over to England where you can find your way in a strange city to a clinic you've never been to before where people you've never met before will carry out the abortion after which you'll have to fly back to Ireland because that way we can say this is a country of christian values and there's no on demand abortion here.

Nice.

Just swap abortion for smoking hash and travel to Amsterdam and not England. By your logic we should legalise taking drugs, on the basis that it will cost less time and money travelling. Sure any law that can be changed on the basis that it will save us money travelling should be changed , strong argument.

Delirium · 19-01-2018 11:42AM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

So your suggestion is that the choice should be abortion on demand in Ireland is unlawful but if you want to have one you can as there are no consequences providing that in one of your most stressful times of need and support you take a flight over to England where you can find your way in a strange city to a clinic you've never been to before where people you've never met before will carry out the abortion after which you'll have to fly back to Ireland because that way we can say this is a country of christian values and there's no on demand abortion here.
Nice.

MOD NOTE

Please don't misrepresent another posters position. There's enough friction on the thread without injecting things people haven't said.

Thanks for your attention.

NuMarvel · 19-01-2018 11:44AM

Nick Park wrote: »

It does make perfect sense if you take human rights treaties seriously. The right to travel is guaranteed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I, and many other people, believe that our country should not be complicit in the taking of human life and should, as far as practicable, defend the right to life of the unborn child.

Removing the human right of freedom of movement is not practicable. You do not promote one person's human rights by restricting another person's human rights. This is why, for example, most of us see torture as unacceptable even if it purports to save lives.

I realise that there are those (active in this thread) who want to portray concern for one group's human rights as somehow not caring for another group of people. That is bogus.

My position is to seek a state of affairs that respects the human rights of all, and to do so in a way that is educational and compassionate rather than punitive or judgemental. You are free to disagree with me, but you betray your own intolerance when you advocate a denial of my democratic right to vote for options that express my views.

Your proposal, in seeking to force people to choose between two bad options is, sadly, typical of the confrontational approach that wants the debate over the 8th amendment to be one of misrepresentation, name-calling and intolerance.

The human rights approach supports the call for further change in our abortion laws.

The UNDHR, as well as other UN treaties, also guarantees the right to be free of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 5 of the UNDHR). But Ireland has twice been cited by UN bodies in recent years for contravening these rights. And the source of those contraventions is our abortion law, which is set out in line with the 8th.

If we’ve already changed our constitution to ensure the 8th doesn’t restrict the human right to freedom of travel, then it follows we also need to change our constitution to ensure it doesn’t restrict the right to be free of cruel, degrading, or unusual treatment. Our legislation (eg the PLDP Act) and regulations would need to follow suit.

Nick Park · 19-01-2018 11:52AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The human rights approach supports the call for further change in our abortion laws.

The UNDHR, as well as other UN treaties, also guarantees the right to be free of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 5 of the UNDHR). But Ireland has twice been cited by UN bodies in recent years for contravening these rights. And the source of those contraventions is our abortion law, which is set out in line with the 8th.

If we’ve already changed our constitution to ensure the 8th doesn’t restrict the human right to freedom of travel, then it follows we also need to change our constitution to ensure it doesn’t restrict the right to be free of cruel, degrading, or unusual treatment. Our legislation (eg the PLDP Act) and regulations would need to follow suit.

The ECHR has ruled that there is no such thing as a human right to an abortion. No core human rights treaty refers to the right to have an abortion.

Ireland has certainly been criticised for the way in which our laws have been applied, and that would certainly be relevant if this thread were discussing whether there should be any change whatsoever to our laws and the way they are applied. But, as you well know, this thread is actually about whether Christians can vote for unlimited abortion.

Refusing to legislate for unlimited abortion does not constitute cruel, degrading or unusual treatment.

end of the road · 19-01-2018 11:59AM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

If you truly believed that you would have no issue with the country preventing people travelling to have an abortion just as the country currently prevents people from travelling if they know they are on their way to commit a murder, smuggle drugs or join ISIS etc.

Next time someone is stopped at the airport on their way to commit a crime all they need say to the Gardai is "No, you can't stop me because I read on a Boards thread a comment by Nick Park who knows loads about stuff that the freedom to travel means you can't stop me on my way to commit a crime"

Are you familiar with the concept of "attempt" in criminal law?

"attempted offenses occur when an individual has an actual intent to commit a crime (in legal terms, specific intent), and takes direct action toward completion of the crime."

If you are travelling to England to have an abortion you are attempting to commit an offence as the constitution is currently framed. The right to travel, like the right to freedom is subject to you not being engaged in or have intent to commit a criminal act.

Do you still think we should have a law which prohibits abortion on demand but through lack of enforcement all it does is add the cost of return flights and some significant personal inconvenience to the process thus enabling women with complete carte blanche to travel to England to have their abortion without any fear whatsoever of any consequence on their return?

You do like to make a lot of stuff up don't you?

So your suggestion is that the choice should be abortion on demand in Ireland is unlawful but if you want to have one you can as there are no consequences providing that in one of your most stressful times of need and support you take a flight over to England where you can find your way in a strange city to a clinic you've never been to before where people you've never met before will carry out the abortion after which you'll have to fly back to Ireland because that way we can say this is a country of christian values and there's no on demand abortion here.

Nice.

the law as it stands is fine. it's about the deterrent factor, via making it difficult to procure abortion, rather then prosecuting someone, for which it would be hard to gather sufficient evidence to bring about a successful prosecution. the law is stopping some abortions via this method. that is why a number of pro-life support it, because it's better to avoid prosecution if possible, where a person is not a danger to society, keeping prison spaces for those who are.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The human rights approach supports the call for further change in our abortion laws.

The UNDHR, as well as other UN treaties, also guarantees the right to be free of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 5 of the UNDHR). But Ireland has twice been cited by UN bodies in recent years for contravening these rights. And the source of those contraventions is our abortion law, which is set out in line with the 8th.

If we’ve already changed our constitution to ensure the 8th doesn’t restrict the human right to freedom of travel, then it follows we also need to change our constitution to ensure it doesn’t restrict the right to be free of cruel, degrading, or unusual treatment. Our legislation (eg the PLDP Act) and regulations would need to follow suit.

there is no right to unrestricted and on demand abortion. the state not providing unrestricted abortion on demand is not cruel, degrading or unusual treatment. i believe it is protecting the human rights of the unborn as much as is practical and that is 100% just. there is a number of issues with the 8th but the lack of unrestricted and on demand abortion is not one of those problems, given that by not having unrestricted and on demand abortion, we are doing all that is practically possible to protect the rights of the unborn.

NuMarvel · 19-01-2018 12:13PM

Nick Park wrote: »

The ECHR has ruled that there is no such thing as a human right to an abortion. No core human rights treaty refers to the right to have an abortion.

Ireland has certainly been criticised for the way in which our laws have been applied, and that would certainly be relevant if this thread were discussing whether there should be any change whatsoever to our laws and the way they are applied. But, as you well know, this thread is actually about whether Christians can vote for unlimited abortion.

Refusing to legislate for unlimited abortion does not constitute cruel, degrading or unusual treatment.

There's the goal post moving again.

I said nothing in my post about a human right to abortion, or legislating for unlimited abortion. And your exchange with Je Suis Jean doesn't refer to the thread subject at all. I was applying your logic, that we removed travel from the scope of the 8th because it breached human rights, to other human rights.

You said yourself, that we "do not promote one person's human rights by restricting another person's human rights.". We have two clear examples of the human right to be free of cruel and degrading treatment being restricted, so it logically follows that you'd agree our abortion laws shouldn't impinge this right in the same way it doesn't impinge the right to travel.

But instead of agreeing, or disagreeing and setting out your reasons why, you’ve chosen instead to evade and deflect. Which is basically the same as disagreeing but having no rationale to back up your stance.

Nick Park · 19-01-2018 12:23PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

There's the goal post moving again.

I said nothing in my post about a human right to abortion, or legislating for unlimited abortion. And your exchange with Je Suis Jean doesn't refer to the thread subject at all. I was applying your logic, that we removed travel from the scope of the 8th because it breached human rights, to other human rights.

It's hardly goal post moving to point out a fact about human rights. Stating an inconvenient truth does not equate to moving goal posts.

My exchange with Je Suis Jean was to challenge his intolerant and undemocratic proposal. That seems reasonable.

And I agree wholeheartedly that the 8th amendment should never have been interpreted in a way that restricted the human right to travel.

You said yourself, that we "do not promote one person's human rights by restricting another person's human rights.". We have two clear examples of the human right to be free of cruel and degrading treatment being restricted, so it logically follows that you'd agree our abortion laws shouldn't impinge this right in the same way it doesn't impinge the right to travel.

I certainly agree that people should be free of cruel and degrading treatment. I don't think I've ever suggested otherwise.

But instead of agreeing, or disagreeing and setting out your reasons why, you’ve chosen instead to evade and deflect. Which is basically the same as disagreeing but having no rationale to back up your stance.

I'm attempting to engage in a discussion. But if you choose to characterise that as deflection and evasion then there you go.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments