Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

1…2627293132…174

Comments

  • #842
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    What happens to a person's body is very much about bodily autonomy, so I'm perfectly fine with ignoring the father's wishes in these cases.

    The opposite would apply also; if she wanted to continue the pregnancy, and he wanted her to have an abortion, she would have the final say.


    Its nothing like that, because bodily autonomy is a more fundamental issue than financial responsibilities. But if you want to change the rules around financial maintenance, there's nothing stopping you from campaigning for it.
    The exercise of all rights is limited to not interfering with somebody else's rights.
    My right to bodily autonomy doesn't extend to killing somebody else ... whether that somebody else is a temporary resident in my body or my house is irrelevant.
    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Other people say if men could become pregnant, there would be abortion clinics on every corner. Let's stick to what actually happens.
    Feminist anti-man misandry ...
    ... men wouldn't be any more likely to abort, than women, if they could become pregnant.


  • #843
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Je_suis_Jean wrote: »
    You make it sound like it could survive at 12 weeks which you know it can't, right?
    Of course it can't survive outside the uterus at 12 weeks ... but is that any reason to kill it?

    The law is there to protect the relatively weak and vulnerable against the relatively strong.
    Women are beneficiaries from this principle when, for example, it comes to men who threaten or abuse them.

    There is one situation where roles are reversed ... and the woman is the strong party and her unborn child is weak and vulnerable.
    ... and what do we find?
    ... people campaigning to kill the unborn child precisely because it is so weak and vulnerable that it needs the woman to sustain its very life.


  • #844
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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"!!
    Your second suggestion would fail on a number of legal principles, including the principle that crimes should be prosecuted in the justistiction where they occur ... and EU Law that allows people to avail of lawful services in any member state.
    There is nobody patting themselves on the back about our current situation, where thousands of Irish women are aborting their pregnancies every year.


  • #845
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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?
    Let us 'call a spade a spade'. The 'pro-abortion' movement calls itself 'pro-choice' because of the deeply negative connotations associated with the word 'abortion'. The 'pro-choice' adjective also relegates the issue to one of 'consumer choice' ... which nobody would normally have any problem with ... except the 'consumer choice', in this instance, is the choice to kill an unborn child ... which many people have a problem with.

    There is a very significant lobby in favour of introducing unlimited abortion into Ireland ... they call themselves 'pro-choice' ... but in reality, when it comes down to it, they are actually 'pro-abortion'.


  • #846
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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!!
    If you are a truly liberal person ... it does make sense.
    EU law provides the right to avail of lawful services in any member state ... and it would create a serious injustice if somebody availed of a legal service in one state, only to be prosecuted on arrival in another state, where such a service was illegal.
    A somewhat trivial example would be prosecuting somebody on arrival in Saudia Arabia for drinking alcohol in Ireland before departure.


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    Let us 'call a spade a spade'. The 'pro-abortion' movement calls itself 'pro-choice' because of the deeply negative connotations associated with the word 'abortion'. The 'pro-choice' adjective also relegates the issue to one of 'consumer choice' ... which nobody would normally have any problem with ... except the 'consumer choice', in this instance, is the choice to kill an unborn child ... which many people have a problem with.

    There is a very significant lobby in favour of introducing unlimited abortion into Ireland ... they call themselves 'pro-choice' ... but in reality, when it comes down to it, they are actually 'pro-abortion'.

    There is not one person I know who is "pro abortion" whatever that means. I'd be quite active in the Repeal movement and I've never met anyone who actually wants women to have abortions. Everyone I meet is simply in favour of giving people choice to decide what's best for them. A lot of those members would not personally choose to have an abortion nor would they pressure a loved one to have one. I'd hope that if my daughter found herself with an unplanned pregnancy that she would continue with it but being pro choice means I respect her choices and I love and support her regardless and will never judge.


  • #848
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    eviltwin wrote: »
    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.
    ... Yes, for some women this may very well be the case ... but they are unlikely to terminate the pregnancy, if it means that much to them. Equally, the emotional and psychological investment will also 'shoot up' as soon as a child is born.
    ... so my basic point remains, that the emotional and physical input demanded by pregnancy is much smaller than that required to care for a newborn.

    ... and at that point fosterage/adoption is available for any mother who cannot cope/doesn't wish to make the large care investment demanded by a newborn.


  • #849
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,579 ✭✭✭Harika


    eviltwin wrote: »
    There is not one person I know who is "pro abortion" whatever that means. I'd be quite active in the Repeal movement and I've never met anyone who actually wants women to have abortions. Everyone I meet is simply in favour of giving people choice to decide what's best for them. A lot of those members would not personally choose to have an abortion nor would they pressure a loved one to have one. I'd hope that if my daughter found herself with an unplanned pregnancy that she would continue with it but being pro choice means I respect her choices and I love and support her regardless and will never judge.

    There was an US slogan for Planned Parenthood, something like "Easy to access, hardly used" stating that if you want an abortion you can have it without any hassle, but there will be systems in place that will give you all support you need to get through the pregnancy and raise a child, so that you don't want one.
    TBH both are missing in Ireland, families with two incomes are struggling and I cannot imagine under which pressure a single female unemployed parent is, where the partner said goodbye and the family offers no support. To expand the safety net here would dis-encourage some women wanting an abortion, what helps to sell the point of an abortion.
    I haven't read the last pages, but it seems the same issue in Ireland than in the US, people care about the unborn fetus but as soon as it is born, the newborn and parents are mostly on their own. All the sympathy then gets replaced by despise for the freeloaders.


  • #850
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    Life begins at conception and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.. And I'm pro choice.
    Thanks Ash ... for pointing out the obvious ... which seems to be eluding the best legal brains in Europe apparently.
    Of course the reason there is no legal defintion of when life begins is to allow abortion right up to birth.


  • #851
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,903 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    J C wrote: »
    The current proposal is for the 8th Amendment to be repealed and for legisation to be introduced immedately upon a 'yes' vote to allow unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks.

    The twelve weeks is the limit there JC. Unrestricted access to abortion within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, and abortion under certain circumstances beyond that is what is being considered. Unlimited abortion implies unrestricted access to abortion services at any stage during the pregnancy. The title of your thread is misleading in this regard. If you mean within 12 weeks, you should maybe edit the title of the thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Harika wrote: »
    There was an US slogan for Planned Parenthood, something like "Easy to access, hardly used" stating that if you want an abortion you can have it without any hassle, but there will be systems in place that will give you all support you need to get through the pregnancy and raise a child, so that you don't want one.
    TBH both are missing in Ireland, families with two incomes are struggling and I cannot imagine under which pressure a single female unemployed parent is, where the partner said goodbye and the family offers no support. To expand the safety net here would dis-encourage some women wanting an abortion, what helps to sell the point of an abortion.
    I haven't read the last pages, but it seems the same issue in Ireland than in the US, people care about the unborn fetus but as soon as it is born, the newborn and parents are mostly on their own. All the sympathy then gets replaced by despise for the freeloaders.
    You have a very good point there.
    Its just not good enough to simply ban unlimited abortion and then let the mothers who go through with their pregenancies 'sink or swim'.
    ... but is this actually the case in Ireland ... we have a number of social and financial supports available to single parents ... perhaps more supports should be made available to all parents, incuding a tax allowance per child dependent for taxpayers, given that roughly 50% of abortions in England are to married Irish women.


  • #853
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    You have a very good point there.
    Its just not good enough to simply ban unlimited abortion and then let the mothers who go through with their pregenancies 'sink or swim'.
    ... but is this actually the case in Ireland ... we have a number of social and financial supports available to single parents ... perhaps more supports should be made available to all parents, incuding a tax allowance per child dependent for taxpayers, given that roughly 50% of abortions in England are to married Irish women.

    The supports are not enough if you want to go to college or work. It wouldn't cover childcare. It's something to keep people afloat but that's all it is. If you have aspirations beyond a life on welfare you will struggle to make that happen if you are on welfare.


  • #854
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    eviltwin wrote: »
    There is not one person I know who is "pro abortion" whatever that means. I'd be quite active in the Repeal movement and I've never met anyone who actually wants women to have abortions. Everyone I meet is simply in favour of giving people choice to decide what's best for them. A lot of those members would not personally choose to have an abortion nor would they pressure a loved one to have one. I'd hope that if my daughter found herself with an unplanned pregnancy that she would continue with it but being pro choice means I respect her choices and I love and support her regardless and will never judge.
    ... so you're not pro-abortion ... yet you're campaigning to make abortion freely available.
    You may describe yourself as you please, but the result you're campaigning for is unlimited abortion.
    If somebody were campaigning for the right to choose to use Cocaine ... I don't think it would be unreasonable to call such a stance to be pro-drugs ... and not merely the choice to use Class A drugs.


  • #855
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,579 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    You have a very good point there.
    Its just not good enough to simply ban unlimited abortion and then let the mothers who go through with their pregenancies 'sink or swim'.
    ... but is this actually the case in Ireland ... we have a number of social and financial supports available to single parents ... perhaps more supports should be made available to all parents, incuding a tax allowance per child dependent for taxpayers, given that roughly 50% of abortions in England are to married Irish women.

    Sorry that is far from enough to have a sustainable life.

    Ireland:
    Mother gets paid: ~225 Euros a week, for six months if the company doesn't top up
    Child creche starts at 6 months for 1000 Euro per month.

    Where I am a from
    Mother gets paid: 80% of her last income, for two years or 90% of her last income for one year
    Child creche starts at 6 weeks for 100 Euro per month.

    Sure that means more taxes, but I would be happy to pay it.


  • #856
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you're not pro-abortion ... yet you're campaigning to make abortion freely available.
    You may describe yourself as you please, but the result you're campaigning for is unlimited abortion.
    If somebody were campaigning for the right to choose to use Cocaine ... I don't think it would be unreasonable to call such a stance to be pro-drugs ... and not merely the choice to use Class A drugs.

    No I'm not pro abortion so don't try and misrepresent me. I'm pro choice. I believe every individual should be free to make their own decision. There are lots of things I personally dislike but I don't believe I have the right to force anyone to live by my morality.


  • #857
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    eviltwin wrote: »
    The supports are not enough if you want to go to college or work. It wouldn't cover childcare. It's something to keep people afloat but that's all it is. If you have aspirations beyond a life on welfare you will struggle to make that happen if you are on welfare.
    Fair point ... and indeed, as a society, we need to do much more for such young women than just offering them an abortion.
    Indeed to reduce abortion, wherever it is being done, we need to do much more in terms of support for pregnant women.


  • #858
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    Fair point ... and indeed, as a society, we need to do much more for such young women than just offering them an abortion.
    Indeed to reduce abortion, wherever it is being done, we need to do much more in terms of support for pregnant women.

    There is no public support for that. You know the kinds of comments people make when those on welfare look for more money. And there is nothing for working families, I work and can manage but another child would mean one of us would have to stay home and we just can't afford that. So judging people who feel they have no other option is pointless because they are the ones who have to make the hard choices based on what's best for them.


  • #859
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    eviltwin wrote: »
    No I'm not pro abortion so don't try and misrepresent me. I'm pro choice. I believe every individual should be free to make their own decision. There are lots of things I personally dislike but I don't believe I have the right to force anyone to live by my morality.
    I have no wish to misrepresent you ... I'm talking about the validity of the term 'pro-choice' when it comes to abortion.

    If somebody were campaigning for the right to choose to use Cocaine ... I don't think it would be unreasonable to call such a stance to be pro-drugs ... and not merely the choice to use Class A drugs.
    They would be asking for the legalisation of Cocaine use ... and would therefore be pro-drugs.

    Similarly, why is the 'pro-choice' movement so coy about what they actually wish to achieve, which is unlimited abortion?


  • #860
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    J C wrote: »
    I have no wish to misrepresent you ... I'm talking about the validity of the term 'pro-choice' when it comes to abortion.

    If somebody were campaigning for the right to choose to use Cocaine ... I don't think it would be unreasonable to call such a stance to be pro-drugs ... and not merely the choice to use Class A drugs.
    They would be asking for the legalisation of Cocaine use ... and would therefore be pro-drugs.

    Similarly, why is the 'pro-choice' movement so coy about what they actually wish to achieve, which is unlimited abortion?

    It's like those who support the reintroduction of capital punishment getting upset at being called 'pro-death penalty'. After all, they don't want every criminal to be executed - they just want the judge to have a choice. So they should be called 'pro-choice' too.

    As for those of us who think slavery should be illegal - we're 'anti-choice' because we are so intolerant as to argue that people shouldn't have the choice whether to keep slaves or not.


  • #861
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,579 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    I have no wish to misrepresent you ... I'm talking about the validity of the term 'pro-choice' when it comes to abortion.

    If somebody were campaigning for the right to choose to use Cocaine ... I don't think it would be unreasonable to call such a stance to be pro-drugs ... and not merely the choice to use Class A drugs.
    They would be asking for the legalisation of Cocaine use ... and would therefore be pro-drugs.

    Similarly, why is the 'pro-choice' movement so coy about what they actually wish to achieve, which is unlimited abortion?

    You again mis-represent the pro-choice stance, that was already clarified before. :rolleyes:
    But you make a good argument where drugs were decriminalized, Czech/Portugal/Holland/parts of the US. What would you expect? More people taking more drugs, but exact the opposite is happening, less people are taking less drugs.


  • Advertisement
  • #862
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    eviltwin wrote: »
    There is no public support for that. You know the kinds of comments people make when those on welfare look for more money. And there is nothing for working families, I work and can manage but another child would mean one of us would have to stay home and we just can't afford that. So judging people who feel they have no other option is pointless because they are the ones who have to make the hard choices based on what's best for them.
    Maybe there should be more support for that.
    ... and I have always believed that there should be a child tax allowance for working parents, like yourself.
    I am not judging any woman who has had an abortion ... far from it, I have absolute compassion for her, that she could only see one solution for her pregnancy because of where she found herself.
    In this regard the availabilty of fosterage or adoption could be something that a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy should look at. It would certainly be better for her child than aborting it.


  • #863
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    I have no wish to misrepresent you ... I'm talking about the validity of the term 'pro-choice' when it comes to abortion.

    If somebody were campaigning for the right to choose to use Cocaine ... I don't think it would be unreasonable to call such a stance to be pro-drugs ... and not merely the choice to use Class A drugs.
    They would be asking for the legalisation of Cocaine use ... and would therefore be pro-drugs.

    Similarly, why is the 'pro-choice' movement so coy about what they actually wish to achieve, which is unlimited abortion?

    I want people to have access to abortion yes. Am I pro abortion? No not at all. It's possible to be personally against something but to support the freedom for others to do so. It's about respecting diversity of opinions.


  • #864
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    Maybe there should be more support for that.
    ... and I have always believed that there should be a child tax allowance for working parents, like yourself.
    I am not judging any woman who has had an abortion ... far from it, I have absolute compassion for her, that she could only see one solution for her pregnancy because of where she found herself.
    In this regard the availabilty of fosterage or adoption could be something that a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy should look at. It would certainly be better for her child than aborting it.

    I'm all for adoption and fostering but only if the woman herself wants it.

    I'm all for financial supports too if that helps.

    Ultimately though there are women who just dont want to be pregnant and nothing we can give them will change that. They should be able to make that choice.


  • #865
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    And yet women miscarry all of the time so your "logic" flies out the window.
    People die all the time ... but except in extremis, killing them isn't allowed, either


  • #866
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,854 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    end of the road wrote: »
    it can't be disputed. you have tried to dispute it but have failed each time.
    of course we would be having the referendum because some in this country think it's okay, unrestricted and on demand, to kill the most vunerable, the unborn. it's not and it never will be whether the 8th is repealed or not. it goes against humanity and all that is right, and everything humanity stands for. this fact unites both religious and non-religious who see unrestricted and on demand abortion for what it actually is

    From the poster who said he/she wants the guards to baton charge men/women/children if they blocked roads in protest against the Garth Brookes concert :pac:


  • #867
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I want people to have access to abortion yes. Am I pro abortion? No not at all. It's possible to be personally against something but to support the freedom for others to do so. It's about respecting diversity of opinions.
    ... and I'm all for respecting diversity of opinions as well ... as long as the appliance of such opinions don't affect other people's rights ... in this case the unborn.

    For example, if somebody was to campaign for the introduction of slavery, on the basis that they didn't want to own slaves themselves ... but they wanted other people to have the choice to own slaves, if they wanted to ... what would s/he be called?
    ... pro-choice or pro-slavery?

    I think that most people would 'connect the dots' very quickly.


  • #868
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'm all for adoption and fostering but only if the woman herself wants it.

    I'm all for financial supports too if that helps.

    Ultimately though there are women who just dont want to be pregnant and nothing we can give them will change that. They should be able to make that choice.
    I'm sure that there are parents who can't cope with rearing their children ... and as a society we help them, up to and including fosterage, if they can't cope at all.
    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'm all for adoption and fostering but only if the woman herself wants it.
    ... and why wouldn't she want her child to be fostered/adopted if the alternative was to kill it?
    Would fosterage/adoption not be best for both her and her child?


  • #869
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    ... and why wouldn't she want her child to be fostered/adopted if the alternative was to kill it?
    Would fosterage/adoption not be best for both her and her child?

    You know, I think that's for her to decide without pressure from people with an agenda. It's not for me to tell another person what's right for them, only they can make that choice. I do know though that whatever she decides she'd have my full support.


  • #870
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    david75 wrote: »
    Not everyone believes in your god Owen. I certainly don’t. Do you still think I’m one of her creations and she gave me a soul? You can have your faith and belief but you have no right whatsoever to force it on me or any woman and her Health choices and decisions for her own life.

    Do you understand that? You were claiming to speak for god only a few pages back yet someone pointed out your bible strictly forbids that and you ran away.

    Might be an idea to keep out of other people’s decisions for their own lives and particularly stay out of women’s wombs. You have no business in there.
    If there isn't a God ... and it all ends when we die ... then is it not arguably more imortant that we don't kill other Human Beings, thereby depriving them of whatever time nature and fate would otherwise give them?

    At least a Christian woman can find some solace in their belief that their unborn child has gone to a better place.

    ... and I'm all for keeping out of other people's decisions, unless they are affecting other people.


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    eviltwin wrote: »
    You know, I think that's for her to decide without pressure from people with an agenda. It's not for me to tell another person what's right for them, only they can make that choice. I do know though that whatever she decides she'd have my full support.
    Why do you give a 'blank cheque' to women, who want to kill their unborn children?
    No man would say that whatever any man does, including killing his children, would have his full support.
    ... the reverse would very definitely be the case.

    I'm sure there are very hard cases that Solomon would find difficult to advise on ... but I'm equally sure that some women abort, simply because they can ... and that is the type of abortion proposed after the repeal of the 8th.
    You clearly don't seem to differentiate between both situations.


Advertisement