Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

NuMarvel · 19-01-2018 12:58PM

Nick Park wrote: »

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.

Your statement had nothing to do with the content of my post, because I never claimed there was a human right to abortion. If you somehow misunderstood that you should have clarified instead of making irrelevant comments.

Nick Park wrote: »

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

And that's the basis on which I replied. Yet your response to me was that I was off topic, even though I was continuing your discussion. Goal post moving.

Nick Park wrote: »

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

I'd point out that an attorney general, a High Court Judge, and the majority of Supreme Court judges in the X Case thought otherwise, but that's a comment about the application of law and not about whether Christians can vote for abortion. And we don't want that, or something.

Nick Park wrote: »

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

Wonderful. I agree. And the only realistic way to make our abortion laws human rights compliant, which we both agree they should be, is by repeal of the 8th.

Which I suppose puts Christians in a bind. Because if they vote no to repeal, they'd be voting against human rights compliant law, but if they vote yes, they may be voting against the tenets of their beliefs.

smacl · 19-01-2018 01:15PM

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

Just because you don't have an explicitly stated right to do something doesn't mean that preventing someone else from doing that thing isn't breaching their rights. You do not have the right to dictate how other people behave purely on the basis that it is a bad fit for your moral code. While I appreciate you take a more secular stance than many on this forum, a large part of the argument coming from a number of Christians on this site is that they are against abortion because it runs contrary to Christian morality. I'm fine with that, insofar as people can and do live to their own moral standards. What is unreasonable is attempting to force others to adhere to moral standards they find objectionable and fundamentally disagree with, where sexuality and reproduction tend to be one of the larger areas of disagreement. As you've pointed out, the crux of this argument centres around the point at which you consider a fertilised human ovum to be a person. Catholic dogma would suggest at point of implantation, others might suggest it is when the foetus becomes viable, etc... such that it is a philosophical (or religious) position rather than a matter of fact. Do you not feel that by taking a pro-life stance you're riding rough-shod over someone else's equally valid position on this in favour of your own position? If not, do you consider your belief as to when a foetus becomes a person the only correct one, where everyone else's belief to be wrong? The Vatican for example have declared the morning after pill to be a form of abortion, are they wrong?

end of the road · 19-01-2018 01:33PM

smacl wrote: »

Just because you don't have an explicitly stated right to do something doesn't mean that preventing someone else from doing that thing isn't breaching their rights. You do not have the right to dictate how other people behave purely on the basis that it is a bad fit for your moral code. While I appreciate you take a more secular stance than many on this forum, a large part of the argument coming from a number of Christians on this site is that they are against abortion because it runs contrary to Christian morality. I'm fine with that, insofar as people can and do live to their own moral standards. What is unreasonable is attempting to force others to adhere to moral standards they find objectionable and fundamentally disagree with, where sexuality and reproduction tend to be one of the larger areas of disagreement. As you've pointed out, the crux of this argument centres around the point at which you consider a fertilised human ovum to be a person. Catholic dogma would suggest at point of implantation, others might suggest it is when the foetus becomes viable, etc... such that it is a philosophical (or religious) position rather than a matter of fact. Do you not feel that by taking a pro-life stance you're riding rough-shod over someone else's equally valid position on this in favour of your own position? If not, do you consider your belief as to when a foetus becomes a person the only correct one, where everyone else's belief to be wrong? The Vatican for example have declared the morning after pill to be a form of abortion, are they wrong?

i disagree that "dictating" that the unborn cannot be killed unless it is within extreme circumstances is unreasonable. i believe it's very reasonable. after all, we have laws in general against the killing of other human beings and we have such for good reason.
i would disagree that the morning after pill is a form of abortion. for me it's not about when the unborn becomes a person exactly, it's about insuring it's rights to develop and grow are upheld once it begins doing so.

smacl · 19-01-2018 01:54PM

end of the road wrote: »

i disagree that "dictating" that the unborn cannot be killed unless it is within extreme circumstances is unreasonable. i believe it's very reasonable. after all, we have laws in general against the killing of other human beings and we have such for good reason.
i would disagree that the morning after pill is a form of abortion. for me it's not about when the unborn becomes a person exactly, it's about insuring it's rights to develop and grow are upheld once it begins doing so.

This is exactly my point. You disagree with me on the first point as you consider the unborn to be a person whereas I and many others do not. You disagree with the Vatican on the second point as they consider the freshly implanted ovum to be a person whereas you and many others do not. What this illustrates is that the stage in a pregnancy at which a the new person comes into being and should be accorded human rights is a matter of personal opinion to a large extent, and not a matter of fact.

end of the road · 19-01-2018 02:43PM

smacl wrote: »

This is exactly my point. You disagree with me on the first point as you consider the unborn to be a person whereas I and many others do not. You disagree with the Vatican on the second point as they consider the freshly implanted ovum to be a person whereas you and many others do not. What this illustrates is that the stage in a pregnancy at which a the new person comes into being and should be accorded human rights is a matter of personal opinion to a large extent, and not a matter of fact.

whatever about personhood, the stage at when the unborn should have rights is for me a matter of fact. they should have such from the minute they begin to grow. i believe that to be right and just.

smacl · 19-01-2018 03:19PM

end of the road wrote: »

whatever about personhood, the stage at when the unborn should have rights is for me a matter of fact. they should have such from the minute they begin to grow. i believe that to be right and just.

But when you say something is a matter of fact 'for me', how exactly is that any different from a matter of opinion. What fact establishes that the foetus is a person yet the implanted ovum or embryo is not? My opinion is that the foetus in the first trimester is not as yet a person. Gven that unrestricted abortion in the first trimester is legal in most of Europe, this would seem to be a very widely held opinion. What makes what you hold to be true a matter of fact and what other people hold to be true a matter of opinion? Until such time as you can establish this, what right have you to dictate how women should deal with their pregnancies?

end of the road · 19-01-2018 03:39PM

smacl wrote: »

But when you say something is a matter of fact 'for me', how exactly is that any different from a matter of opinion. What fact establishes that the foetus is a person yet the implanted ovum or embryo is not? My opinion is that the foetus in the first trimester is not as yet a person. Gven that unrestricted abortion in the first trimester is legal in most of Europe, this would seem to be a very widely held opinion. What makes what you hold to be true a matter of fact and what other people hold to be true a matter of opinion? Until such time as you can establish this, what right have you to dictate how women should deal with their pregnancies?

i don't remember saying that the foetus is a person just yet. it's definitely a human being and a life, and it will eventually be a person, and on that basis i believe that it needs rights and still deserves protection. it's not about dictating, it's about the fact that bar extreme circumstances, killing the unborn has no justification and i believe it's best for society that such should not be provided for within the state. allowing an unrestricted and on demand abortion is a step to far in terms of liberalism and it's good that we have a cross section of people both religious and non-religious who agree.

EirWatchr · 19-01-2018 03:52PM

smacl wrote: »

But when you say something is a matter of fact 'for me', how exactly is that any different from a matter of opinion. What fact establishes that the foetus is a person yet the implanted ovum or embryo is not? My opinion is that the foetus in the first trimester is not as yet a person. Gven that unrestricted abortion in the first trimester is legal in most of Europe, this would seem to be a very widely held opinion. What makes what you hold to be true a matter of fact and what other people hold to be true a matter of opinion? Until such time as you can establish this, what right have you to dictate how women should deal with their pregnancies?

end of the road has it by the same right as you have to declare who/what is not a person by your opinion. Unrestricted abortion in the first trimester is legal in Europe because (as the committee has heard) there is no legal definition yet of when a life begins (and on which abortion could later be contested). You seem to know better than the law.

Ash.J.Williams · 19-01-2018 04:22PM

Life begins at conception and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.. And I'm pro choice.

smacl · 19-01-2018 04:26PM

end of the road wrote: »

i don't remember saying that the foetus is a person just yet. it's definitely a human being and a life, and it will eventually be a person, and on that basis i believe that it needs rights and still deserves protection. it's not about dictating, it's about the fact that bar extreme circumstances, killing the unborn has no justification and i believe it's best for society that such should not be provided for within the state. allowing an unrestricted and on demand abortion is a step to far in terms of liberalism and it's good that we have a cross section of people both religious and non-religious who agree.

Well if the foetus is not in your opinion a person, it is not protected by the Irish constitution, which affords rights and protections to the person. The fact that the constitution refers to the unborn by my reading distinguishes the unborn for the person in a more general sense. What you believe is no more or less than a matter of opinion and personal preference, same as what I believe or anyone else. The reason this debate is taking place and why it will be put to the people is that there are very many people who do not share your opinion.

smacl · 19-01-2018 04:27PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Life begins at conception and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.. And I'm pro choice.

Life takes many shapes and forms, people less so.

smacl · 19-01-2018 04:51PM

EirWatchr wrote: »

end of the road has it by the same right as you have to declare who/what is not a person by your opinion. Unrestricted abortion in the first trimester is legal in Europe because (as the committee has heard) there is no legal definition yet of when a life begins (and on which abortion could later be contested). You seem to know better than the law.

Quite so, I merely pointed out what end of the road was expressing was an opinion, not a matter of fact. The law as it stands in this country interferes with the human rights of pregnant women as has been noted by the UN and human rights groups such as amnesty. This debate is occurring to see if that can be rectified.

NaFirinne · 19-01-2018 05:14PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

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

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

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?

So you just make a statement that Christian's have done horrific things that then go on about why is there an us vs them when someone mentions the Pro Abortion Lobby?

Maybe I'm mis-reading your posts but it this not a contradiction.

All people get to vote the way they want - and I think it's been established that a Christian can't vote to repeal the 8th, unless there kidding themselves about being a christian.

Is there any circumstance why an Atheist would vote against the 8th?

Nick Park · 19-01-2018 05:16PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Life begins at conception and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.. And I'm pro choice.

That's quite true. An obvious answer from a scientific standpoint.

It's also obvious from a scientific perspective that an unborn child is not part of a woman's body, or a parasite (both of which I've heard aired in the current debate).

The real question, as far as abortion is concerned, is when personhood begins. That would appear to be a philosophical question rather than a scientific question.

Nick Park · 19-01-2018 05:31PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Your statement had nothing to do with the content of my post, because I never claimed there was a human right to abortion. If you somehow misunderstood that you should have clarified instead of making irrelevant comments.

That's how your statement came across. If I misunderstood, then I could hardly clarify if I wasn't aware you had meant something different.
Anyway, no point in squabbling about it now you have clarified that isn't what you were saying. These misunderstandings are easy enough in a thread where multiple contributions are flying around.

Wonderful. I agree. And the only realistic way to make our abortion laws human rights compliant, which we both agree they should be, is by repeal of the 8th.

Which I suppose puts Christians in a bind. Because if they vote no to repeal, they'd be voting against human rights compliant law, but if they vote yes, they may be voting against the tenets of their beliefs.

No, I don't agree that repeal is the only way. Removing constitutional protection of all unborn children to address a comparatively rare number of cases does not make sense. That removes the power from the people and allows politicians to legislate whatever they choose as regards abortion. Given our political system, where one zealot or nut job can hold a minority government or coalition to ransom, that would be foolish in the extreme. History suggests that politicians are not averse to selling the weak and defenceless down the river to save their own grip on power.

The best way to avoid cruel, degrading or unusual treatment is to specify what actually qualifies as such, and then to propose an adjustment to the Constitution that addresses such issues. Or, if it can be dealt with without adjusting the Constitution (as happened in 2013) then to do so.

I don't see that Christians are in a bind at all. If we consider unborn children as people with human rights, then it makes sense to vote to keep the Eighth.

Voting against the tenets of our beliefs is no problem. Most of us (with the exception of a few fruit loops) are perfectly happy to live in a society where our tenets of belief are ignored all the time.

Nick Park · 19-01-2018 05:45PM

smacl wrote: »

Just because you don't have an explicitly stated right to do something doesn't mean that preventing someone else from doing that thing isn't breaching their rights. You do not have the right to dictate how other people behave purely on the basis that it is a bad fit for your moral code.

None of us have a right to dictate how other people behave purely on the basis that it is a bad fit for our moral code.

But we do all have a right to vote and lobby for laws that protect the rights and liberties of others.

As you've pointed out, the crux of this argument centres around the point at which you consider a fertilised human ovum to be a person. Catholic dogma would suggest at point of implantation, others might suggest it is when the foetus becomes viable, etc... such that it is a philosophical (or religious) position rather than a matter of fact. Do you not feel that by taking a pro-life stance you're riding rough-shod over someone else's equally valid position on this in favour of your own position?

No. No more than MLK rode roughshod over someone else's equally valid (in their eyes) position that African-Americans didn't deserve civil rights.

The point at which personhood begins is a philosophical matter. The concept that human rights exist at all is a philosophical matter.

I would suggest that nobody knows when personhood begins. There are dogmatic views (conception, viability, birth) but dogma is no basis on which to legislate.
Therefore I advocate a safety first policy. Which is worse? To get it wrong by setting the point too early, and thereby inadvertently protecting those who are not human beings? Or to get it wrong by setting the point too late, and thereby killing those who are human beings?

In my opinion, history has seen very little evil caused by being too generous in our application of human rights or by broadening them. But incalculable evil has been caused by being selfish in our application of human rights and by narrowing them so as to exclude categories of people.

All I am doing is advocating that Ireland votes for a broader and more generous application of human rights than many countries currently offer. You might disagree with me. But it is telling just how much bile and snide sarcasm is attracted by advocating such a position.

smacl · 19-01-2018 06:30PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I advocate a safety first policy. Which is worse? To get it wrong by setting the point too early, and thereby inadvertently protecting those who are not human beings? Or to get it wrong by setting the point too late, and thereby killing those who are human beings?

Lets not forget that the cost of getting it wrong by choosing too early a time can also be very high. For example, if we consider the emergency contraception in the form of the morning after pill, the Vatican considers this a form of abortion and wanted it banned on that basis. Irish people sensibly rejected that notion and it is now freely available. This has led to fewer unwanted pregnancies and for ironically, fewer abortions. It is worth remembering that an unwanted pregnancy can cause hardship, suffering and in some cases adverse negative health effects and even death. To ignore this, just 'to play it safe' is in my opinion inhumane in the extreme. If we don't allow legal abortion in a safe environment we're promoting illegal abortion in an uncontrolled environment, or later abortion for those who travel. Women with an unwanted pregnancy that do not wish to carry it through to birth will find a way regardless of the law, and it is unreasonable and inhumane to castigate them and even criminalise them for doing so. I think what many pro-life people miss is that pro-choice people also want to minimise the number of abortions, which after all should be a rarer event than in times past with proper contraception, emergency contraception and education. The difference as I see it between the two sides is that the pro-life side seek to legislate against women with to keep their NIMBY morality in tact, where the pro-choice side are dealing with bringing legislation in line with reality.

In my opinion, history has seen very little evil caused by being too generous in our application of human rights or by broadening them. But incalculable evil has been caused by being selfish in our application of human rights and by narrowing them so as to exclude categories of people.

I would say that this country has a long and shameful history of mistreating women with unwanted pregnancies in the name of defending Christian moral standards.

All I am doing is advocating that Ireland votes for a broader and more generous application of human rights than many countries currently offer. You might disagree with me. But it is telling just how much bile and snide sarcasm is attracted by advocating such a position.

I agree that the vote is to improve human rights and I think that is what will happen. As for snide and sarcastic remarks, when you read posts on this thread such as advocating population control via a legal ban on sex outside marriage, or that abortion should be banned because it goes against God's will, or that the end is near and we're all about to perish for our sins, I imagine even your eyes make the occasional roll to heaven.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-01-2018 01:55AM

Nick Park wrote: »

First off, I'm sorry to hear about the miscarriages. Been there myself and I know how it feels.

Thank you. It's something which is hard to describe to people who haven't been there, and something very frequently not talked about.
Women will often have a positive pregnancy test at 3 - 4 weeks but refrain from telling their own mothers, never mind wider family or friends, for quite a while after just in case things go wrong. It goes wrong fairly often but it's not something people can talk about.

Thirdly, if you didn't see your miscarried unborn child as a human being, then it sounds as if the 'Catholic' hospital (debatable term, but another topic) did not force their religious views on you. Is that a bad thing?

We certainly didn't want them to force a religious view upon us. But a little bit of acknowlegement of the loss of the hoped-for pregnancy wouldn't have gone amiss, either. If I could describe our treatment there (and it happened in the same hospital three times) it would be - efficient. They did what was medically necessary but they offered nothing in the way of emotional support or empathy whatsoever - which is totally at odds with the supposed Catholic view of a pregnancy, however early, as being a child.

People had similar years ago when they had to bury stillbirths in unconsecrated ground. The Catholic Church is a strange thing, and it's unchangeable dogma changes quite a lot over time.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-01-2018 01:57AM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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.

JSJ you are wrong on this one, there is a specific constitutional right to travel for 'services legally provided in another country'* thanks to the amendment in 1992. I agree that it's illogical to give an explicit right to Irish residents to do overseas what is illegal here, but we are where we are until the 8th is repealed.

* Oddly enough though the Gardai have, without the backing of legislation, taken it upon themselves to harass and intimidate people seeking euthanasia in another country. In other words, we have a police force acting outside the law imposing their own version of morality with no legal basis.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 20-01-2018 07:17AM

It is logical that if you conceive, you have a baby.

david75 · 20-01-2018 07:24AM

I’d be interested to know the male to female ratio posting in this thread.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 20-01-2018 07:35AM

david75 wrote:

Iâ€™d be interested to know the male to female ratio posting in this thread.

That is irrelevant. The truth is the truth, regardless of gender.

david75 · 20-01-2018 07:44AM

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

That is irrelevant. The truth is the truth, regardless of gender.

Do you have any kids?

screamer · 20-01-2018 08:46AM

If Christians followed everything in the Bible...our societies wouldn't be any better than those of others which we complain about for being repressive and medieval.
There seems to be a thinking that if we legislate for abortion there'll be abortion en masse. I don't believe that for a second. The decision to end a life would be that of the woman or couple involved and no one elses. Just like if the baby would be theirs to rear and no one elses. So the Christians can salve their conscience. And BTW if a Christian wants to force a woman through a pregnancy from rape or where the baby has little chance of survival or indeed has no financial means to provide for that child, I'd wonder how "Christian" one really is......

Timberrrrrrrr · 20-01-2018 09:25AM

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

It is logical that if you conceive, you have a baby.

And yet women miscarry all of the time so your "logic" flies out the window.

end of the road · 20-01-2018 02:08PM

screamer wrote: »

If Christians followed everything in the Bible...our societies wouldn't be any better than those of others which we complain about for being repressive and medieval.
There seems to be a thinking that if we legislate for abortion there'll be abortion en masse. I don't believe that for a second. The decision to end a life would be that of the woman or couple involved and no one elses. Just like if the baby would be theirs to rear and no one elses. So the Christians can salve their conscience. And BTW if a Christian wants to force a woman through a pregnancy from rape or where the baby has little chance of survival or indeed has no financial means to provide for that child, I'd wonder how "Christian" one really is......

protecting the rights of the unborn as much as is practical is a very christian thing to do. you don't even need to be christian to support such a stance. unrestricted and on demand abortion has no place and is not needed in ireland. abortion in cases of FFA and other extreme circumstances should be brought in as part of the existing legislation that allows abortion in limited circumstances.

antiskeptic · 20-01-2018 02:26PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Life begins at conception and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.. And I'm pro choice.

Human life?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 20-01-2018 02:55PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

And yet women miscarry all of the time so your "logic" flies out the window.

A miscarriage is a baby.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 20-01-2018 02:56PM

antiskeptic wrote:

Human life?

Yes.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 20-01-2018 04:33PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

And yet women miscarry all of the time so your "logic" flies out the window.

God implants a soul at conception.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments