Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

gallifreya · 22-01-2018 03:29AM

J C wrote: »

What is this 'harm' that you speak of which pregnant women suffer?
Pregnancy is a natural state for a fertile woman to find herself and most pregnancies proceed smoothly and with no ill effects.
If a pregnancy threatens a womans life or if necessary medication for a womans health and wellbeing has the effect of harming her unborn child, then so be it, the woman's life and health 'trumps' the unborn's rights in this regard.
However, unlimited abortion is abortion simply because a woman decides to abort (or those around her convince her, sometimes against her better judgement, to have an abortion).

I disagree that any Christian who votes to repeal is not a Christian. There is a dilemma and perhaps there should be, but to take a truly equal view, is it not multifaceted? If a Christian knows that a woman could be put at risk of injury or death by either pregnancy or by taking an abortion pill in unsafe circumstances, should there be a moral obligation NOT to contribute to the tragedy? Not imposing faith related views on it which only protect the unborn.

There seems to be a view that pregnancy just takes time and sails by seamlessly and at most is an inconvenience. I can only interpret that as either ignorance or misogyny.

Adoption and fostering are parenting options not pregnancy options.

I cannot agree with women being forced to suffer unwanted pregnancy or forced to suffer physical changes, pain and trauma or emotional damage that can impact her health and her future. I’m not talking about stretch-marks or normal morning sickness here. Pregnancy is challenging – even when planned and wanted. Consider the common risks. High blood pressure, pelvic girdle pain, softening of the pelvic floor, thrombosis, embolism, diabetes, congestive heart failure, PND ..... It’s hard to comprehend how anyone can say pregnancy is an inconvenience and women must endure it for the sake of the end result. Maybe this view is taken because the state is temporary, and women should be prepared to make that sacrifice. Maybe they are speaking from the privilege of their own circumstances.

To really consider abortion equally (from the aspect of both the woman and the unborn) I would suggest supporting unborn life as potential life, to be weighed against the life, health and circumstances of the mother and the proposed legislation does that to a limit of 12 weeks. Currently, in extenuating circumstances, legislation protects the life of the Mother but not her health.
Abortion is a very difficult decision not made lightly but it can be the most responsible decision a woman can make when faced with an unplanned pregnancy or a pregnancy that will have serious health consequences.

end of the road · 22-01-2018 03:35AM

david75 wrote: »

Nobody is fighting for abortion on demand. That isn’t what the referendum Or cause leading to it is about at all. You and the anti choice brigade can try frame it like that as you are but that’s one of the misleading narratives that people see through and it will turn them against your position.

You’re deliberatley misleading people and lying about the entire premise. People aren’t stupid. The same misdirection tactics were tried in the marriage equality referendum. ‘But what about the children??? They deserve a mother and father. ’
We weren’t voting on children or mother or father.
You’re creating a different narrative to suit your aim and not dealing with the actual facts and realities at hand. This is why pro life if it continues this attempt to derail the debate, will fail.

they are fighting for abortion on demand as what they are looking for isn't abortion within limited circumstances but unquestioned and unreasoned abortion up to at least 12 weeks. that in my view fits the definition of abortion on demand.
misleading narratives are not exclusive to one side and most on the pro-life side certainly do not engage in such. if people turn against the pro-life position, it's because they never truely agreed with it in the first place.
the vast majority of pro-life are not misleading people or lying about anything and we are dealing with the facts and realities. the vast vast majority of pro-life are not trying to de-rail anything. if we are to fail, it will simply be because we don't have enough numbers, it won't be because of anything we do as the majority of pro-life will handle this campaign very well. also, there are a number of issues which would cause one to vote to repeal the 8th.

david75 · 22-01-2018 03:39AM

gallifreya wrote: »

I disagree that any Christian who votes to repeal is not a Christian. There is a dilemma and perhaps there should be, but to take a truly equal view, is it not multifaceted? If a Christian knows that a woman could be put at risk of injury or death by either pregnancy or by taking an abortion pill in unsafe circumstances, should there be a moral obligation NOT to contribute to the tragedy? Not imposing faith related views on it which only protect the unborn.

There seems to be a view that pregnancy just takes time and sails by seamlessly and at most is an inconvenience. I can only interpret that as either ignorance or misogyny.

Adoption and fostering are parenting options not pregnancy options.

I cannot agree with women being forced to suffer unwanted pregnancy or forced to suffer physical changes, pain and trauma or emotional damage that can impact her health and her future. I’m not talking about stretch-marks or normal morning sickness here. Pregnancy is challenging – even when planned and wanted. Consider the common risks. High blood pressure, pelvic girdle pain, softening of the pelvic floor, thrombosis, embolism, diabetes, congestive heart failure, PND ..... It’s hard to comprehend how anyone can say pregnancy is an inconvenience and women must endure it for the sake of the end result. Maybe this view is taken because the state is temporary, and women should be prepared to make that sacrifice. Maybe they are speaking from the privilege of their own circumstances.

To really consider abortion equally (from the aspect of both the woman and the unborn) I would suggest supporting unborn life as potential life, to be weighed against the life, health and circumstances of the mother and the proposed legislation does that to a limit of 12 weeks. Currently, in extenuating circumstances, legislation protects the life of the Mother but not her health.
Abortion is a very difficult decision not made lightly but it can be the most responsible decision a woman can make when faced with an unplanned pregnancy or a pregnancy that will have serious health consequences.

This is the most sense that ive ever seen anyone make on this debate.

Harika · 22-01-2018 09:36AM

J C wrote: »

Would fosterage/adoption not be best for both her and her child?

Oh giving up a child is not easy and has long lasting complications on both. My partner has been adopted and the story is heartbreaking. Beginning of the 80s the unmarried mother gets pregnant, she consults the priest who sends her to some advice centre. There the nuns tell her that she brings shame over her family, but they will help her. They arrange for her to move from South to North and get her a job in a restaurant. Her family just knew that she moved to the North for a job. There no one asks a lot of questions and adoption is organised.
Day of birth, she is brought in through labour, child gets born. Shown quickly once, she is allowed to assign a name. After this she returns back home and pretends to her family that nothing happened.
Baby is brought to foster care to good Christians, they have no idea of babies and feed the baby starting from week two! 2! cookies, I am getting angry just thinking about that. As the baby won't stop crying as it is hungry, they give it tranquillisers for adults to calm it down. Again they had no credentials only to be good Christians. This madness stops when the baby arrives at the adopting parents some weeks later. They wonder why the baby cannot be put out of the arms and why it is so underweight. It was closer to death than alive at this time, no one ever checked on the foster parents and they got more chances to foster afterwards.
So the parish also writes a letter back to the mother, claiming that they renamed the baby as they thought it is a better fit, also that her family would not have supported her anyway and she diverted shame from them. When she finally opened up, parts of the family came forward and would have supported her.
Fast forward to today, the mother could not have children after this, and regrets the adoptions until today bitterly. Suffers from several psychological issues.
The baby grew up, suffers until today from several disorders, that can be traced back to foster parents but also the fact that the first thing that happen, was the mother/parents gave it away. And what we talked with other adopted people, this is one of the main issues they face. Why were they given away? Were they not good enough?

In short, fosterage/adoption can be, but there is no guarantee that it is the best for one or both sides.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2018 10:29AM

Reading this thread has lead me to believe that some people in this country must live extremely sheltered lives.

Every woman they know is maternal and would be delighted to welcome an unexpected child, those that struggle financially have excellent standards of living due to the plethora (lol) of government support available.
Women don't mind sacrificing their futures, hopes and dreams to have this baby, sure what else would they be up to. That's what women are for.

On the off chance the mother isn't willing, there are literally THOUSANDS of adults akin to Daddy Warbux from Annie simply lining up to take these unwanted kids out of the care system. But the care system is like living at Disneyland so the kids are having great lives anyway while waiting to be adopted.

Oh and at the end of their lives, they receive top notch pallative care, are in no pain, the family aren't traumatised from witnessing the agony of their loved one and they die quickly with dignity.

What a wonderful world that must be to live in. Sure no wonder they don't see any need for abortion when they don't have a clue of the struggles people are going through. They must never have known a days worry in their lives.

Gerry T · 22-01-2018 11:22AM

david75 wrote:

Iâ€™m predicting the 8th will pass. Where then will this â€˜Christianâ€™ morality go? It opposed marriage equality in Ireland and lost. Abortion seems to be the last grasp at maintaining control and domonion on the lives of others that donâ€™t share their faith or view. So if the 8th is repealed what then?

This is not representative of what's happening, I have no religious belief. I do believe from conception there's a child in the womb and not a clump of cells. As such we all have a responsibility to balance the protection of the child and mother. I don't agree with abortion when the reason falls into categories such as I can't afford a child etc... On the other hand if the mother has a serious threat physically or mentally then yes an abortion should be available with any post abortion support needed.
To try turn this debate into a religious one is wrong. For me it's not about controlling women, that smacks of passive aggressive nonsense. It's about protecting the life of a child.

end of the road · 22-01-2018 01:16PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Reading this thread has lead me to believe that some people in this country must live extremely sheltered lives.

Every woman they know is maternal and would be delighted to welcome an unexpected child, those that struggle financially have excellent standards of living due to the plethora (lol) of government support available.
Women don't mind sacrificing their futures, hopes and dreams to have this baby, sure what else would they be up to. That's what women are for.

On the off chance the mother isn't willing, there are literally THOUSANDS of adults akin to Daddy Warbux from Annie simply lining up to take these unwanted kids out of the care system. But the care system is like living at Disneyland so the kids are having great lives anyway while waiting to be adopted.

Oh and at the end of their lives, they receive top notch pallative care, are in no pain, the family aren't traumatised from witnessing the agony of their loved one and they die quickly with dignity.

What a wonderful world that must be to live in. Sure no wonder they don't see any need for abortion when they don't have a clue of the struggles people are going through. They must never have known a days worry in their lives.

we don't see any need for unrestricted and on demand abortion because there is no need for it. there is a want for it, and wants don't trump rights. so one's want for an abortion does not trump the right of the unborn to life. abortion is needed in certain circumstances such as FFA or where there is a threat to the life of, or of permanent injury or disability to the mother, and it should be provided in those circumstances. but for non-extreme reasons, it is not the job of the state to provide it and it shouldn't.
and nobody has said there are no problems with our systems, plenty of us have and said they need solving. however their problems are not justification to allow for abortion on demand. abortion on demand is a non-solution looking for problems.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2018 01:29PM

end of the road wrote: »

we don't see any need for unrestricted and on demand abortion because there is no need for it. there is a want for it, and wants don't trump rights. so one's want for an abortion does not trump the right of the unborn to life. abortion is needed in certain circumstances such as FFA or where there is a threat to the life of, or of permanent injury or disability to the mother, and it should be provided in those circumstances. but for non-extreme reasons, it is not the job of the state to provide it and it shouldn't.
and nobody has said there are no problems with our systems, plenty of us have and said they need solving. however their problems are not justification to allow for abortion on demand. abortion on demand is a non-solution looking for problems.

There is a need for it. Many, many people have explained why there is a need for it. Women who have procured abortions have explained to you why there was a need for it.

You can keep shouting with your fingers in your ears that there is no need for it and women have no right to it, but the FACT of the matter is, we are HAVING a referendum due to public interest in reforming our laws to allow abortion in Ireland.
A large portion of society feel that Irish women are not being afforded full bodily autonomy and want to see the laws amended to reflect same.
Whether you like it or not, this is a fact.

You can disagree with it by all means, but don't be so ignorant to assume you (as a man) can speak for the whole of our society by making blanket statements about there being no "need" for abortion, when public demand is so large we're actually having a referendum on the issue.

end of the road · 22-01-2018 01:45PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

There is a need for it. Many, many people have explained why there is a need for it. Women who have procured abortions have explained to you why there was a need for it.

they wanted it, they didn't need it. they may have thought they needed it but they didn't. there is no need for abortion on demand. there is a need for abortion in certain circumstances currently not covered by existing legislation and if that was to be offered then there would be lots of support for repeal from the pro-life movement as well. however what is being offered has forced many of us to vote no to repeal to try and protect against abortion on demand.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You can keep shouting with your fingers in your ears that there is no need for it and women have no right to it, but the FACT of the matter is, we are HAVING a referendum due to public interest in reforming our laws to allow abortion in Ireland.
A large portion of society feel that Irish women are not being afforded full bodily autonomy and want to see the laws amended to reflect same.
Whether you like it or not, this is a fact.

You can disagree with it by all means, but don't be so ignorant to assume you (as a man) can speak for the whole of our society by making blanket statements about there being no "need" for abortion, when public demand is so large we're actually having a referendum on the issue.

there is no need for abortion on demand, there is a want for it. the people claiming there is a need for it are mixing up their needs and wants. full bodily autonomy is separate to the abortion issue and if we were voting on full bodily autonomy then there would be full support for repealing the 8th. but prohibiting someone from having an abortion outside extreme circumstances is not going against bodily autonomy. if it's not okay to kill a child after it's born, it's not okay to kill it before hand unless there is absolutely no other option to prevent death or permanent disability or injury to the mother, or the baby is unable to be caried to term or will not live to term.
you don't have to like that but if you believe in the right to life in general, i can't see why you wouldn't agree with such a stance.

Harika · 22-01-2018 01:53PM

end of the road wrote: »

they wanted it, they didn't need it. they may have thought they needed it but they didn't. there is no need for abortion on demand.

Why do you think a woman wants to have an abortion? And what makes it different, from their point of view, of a need?

SusieBlue · 22-01-2018 01:57PM

end of the road wrote: »

they wanted it, they didn't need it. they may have thought they needed it but they didn't. there is no need for abortion on demand. there is a need for abortion in certain circumstances currently not covered by existing legislation and if that was to be offered then there would be lots of support for repeal from the pro-life movement as well. however what is being offered has forced many of us to vote no to repeal to try and protect against abortion on demand.

there is no need for abortion on demand, there is a want for it. the people claiming there is a need for it are mixing up their needs and wants. full bodily autonomy is separate to the abortion issue and if we were voting on full bodily autonomy then there would be full support for repealing the 8th. but prohibiting someone from having an abortion outside extreme circumstances is not going against bodily autonomy. if it's not okay to kill a child after it's born, it's not okay to kill it before hand unless there is absolutely no other option to prevent death or permanent disability or injury to the mother, or the baby is unable to be caried to term or will not live to term.
you don't have to like that but if you believe in the right to life in general, i can't see why you wouldn't agree with such a stance.

So we've now progressed (or regressed? you've made statements like this before) to statements about how women are imbeciles and don't know what they really need, they just think they do.
And you, with your superiority, know better than them, and can assume to dictate what she really wants/needs, because you feel you have the authority to do so, and of course, you know better.

You are implying that women are so stupid that they'd go out and get an abortion because they're mixing up their needs and wants, as if zero consideration went into the matter at all.

Your blatant lack of respect or trust in women is truly astounding.

You are doing both yourself and the pro-life side no favours making blanket statements like this. It just comes across as if you have some bizarre deep rooted hatred and distrust for females.

Gerry T · 22-01-2018 02:24PM

WhiteRoses wrote:

You are implying that women are so stupid that they'd go out and get an abortion because they're mixing up their needs and wants, as if zero consideration went into the matter at all.

If your saying women only have abortions because of needs and not wants then there's no argument. No requirement for on demand abortion.

WhiteRoses wrote:

Your blatant lack of respect or trust in women is truly astounding.

That's very condescending and totally sqewing what was said.

WhiteRoses wrote:

You are doing both yourself and the pro-life side no favours making blanket statements like this. It just comes across as if you have some bizarre deep rooted hatred and distrust for females.

What???? He said abortions are fine if it's a need. Just not wants...so put it this way, if a woman has an abortion because it will eat into her social life and spending power then that's ok with you?

....... · 22-01-2018 02:34PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 22-01-2018 02:36PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2018 02:40PM

Gerry T wrote: »

If your saying women only have abortions because of needs and not wants then there's no argument. No requirement for on demand abortion.

That's very condescending and totally sqewing what was said.

What???? He said abortions are fine if it's a need. Just not wants...so put it this way, if a woman has an abortion because it will eat into her social life and spending power then that's ok with you?

I’m not skewing anything. His idea of ‘needing’ an abortion is in cases of FFA and if the mothers health is greatly at risk.
In his opinion, anyone wanting one outside those circumstances, is simply confused about their wants and needs.
That is extremely patronising, to imply that grown women don’t know their own medical needs.
It implies a serious level of distrust in women to make their own choices.
What one woman might deem to be a ‘need’ for an abortion will be completely different from the next. Anyone that doesn’t fit into his little bracket is being made out to be an imbecile who didn’t consider their options thoroughly enough.

This poster is renowned for making unsubstained arguments and then skirting around the question when people pull him up on it.

The fact of the matter is that it’s incredibly offensive to undermine a woman like that.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2018 02:44PM

....... wrote: »

Is that really why you think women are having abortions?

You must have a very low opinion of women.

It’s actually sickening the way women are spoken about in this thread.

end of the road · 22-01-2018 02:52PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

So we've now progressed (or regressed? you've made statements like this before) to statements about how women are imbeciles and don't know what they really need, they just think they do.
And you, with your superiority, know better than them, and can assume to dictate what she really wants/needs, because you feel you have the authority to do so, and of course, you know better.

You are implying that women are so stupid that they'd go out and get an abortion because they're mixing up their needs and wants, as if zero consideration went into the matter at all.

Your blatant lack of respect or trust in women is truly astounding.

You are doing both yourself and the pro-life side no favours making blanket statements like this. It just comes across as if you have some bizarre deep rooted hatred and distrust for females.

i have never ever said women are imbeciles and don't know what they really need. you have said that i said this, and you saying i said something i never said doesn't make it accurate. i have full trust in women, but disagree with the killing of the unborn outside limited circumstances. that view is shared by the pro-life side and if anyone isn't doing anyone any favours, it's yourself not doing the pro-choice any favours with your lies, allegations and misrepresentation, something you have been getting away with far to much. suggesting that being against the killing of the unborn, and that most abortions aren't needed, = a "bizarre deep rooted hatred and distrust for females" says it all about the person who makes such a suggestion and believes such rubbish.

....... · 22-01-2018 03:04PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2018 03:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

i have never ever said women are imbeciles and don't know what they really need. you have said that i said this, and you saying i said something i never said doesn't make it accurate. i have full trust in women, but disagree with the killing of the unborn outside limited circumstances. that view is shared by the pro-life side and if anyone isn't doing anyone any favours, it's yourself not doing the pro-choice any favours with your lies, allegations and misrepresentation, something you have been getting away with far to much. suggesting that being against the killing of the unborn, and that most abortions aren't needed, = a "bizarre deep rooted hatred and distrust for females" says it all about the person who makes such a suggestion and believes such rubbish.

You are once again full of contradictions. Here is where you said what you are denying to have said, quoting you for truth:

end of the road wrote: »

they wanted it, they didn't need it. they may have thought they needed it but they didn't. there is no need for abortion on demand.

eviltwin · 22-01-2018 03:46PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It’s actually sickening the way women are spoken about in this thread.

What do you expect from a bunch of pro life, religious men. They are knuckle draggers with a keyboard.

end of the road · 22-01-2018 03:47PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are once again full of contradictions. Here is where you said what you are denying to have said, quoting you for truth:

yeah, the post i wrote which you quoted, is very different to what you claim i said. now stop misrepresenting me.

david75 · 22-01-2018 03:49PM

Quote: end of the road
they wanted it, they didn't need it. they may have thought they needed it but they didn't. there is no need for abortion on demand.

This is exactly what’s wrong. That last sentence.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2018 03:51PM

david75 wrote: »

Quote: end of the road
they wanted it, they didn't need it. they may have thought they needed it but they didn't. there is no need for abortion on demand.

This is exactly what’s wrong. That last sentence.

'They may have thought they needed it, but they didn't'... I actually can't believe anyone could even try to defend a statement like this.

Delirium · 22-01-2018 03:56PM

eviltwin wrote: »

What do you expect from a bunch of pro life, religious men. They are knuckle draggers with a keyboard.

MOD NOTE

Please keep to the topic instead of commenting on other posters.

Thanks for your attention.

....... · 22-01-2018 04:01PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2018 04:02PM

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, the post i wrote which you quoted, is very different to what you claim i said. now stop misrepresenting me.

Can you please provide a link to back up your claim that women who think they need to have abortions, actually don't.
I'd love to see some intelligent evidence to prove this claim that you've made on 2-3 threads now.

FYI, stating "its just a fact" doesn't count as evidence.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-01-2018 04:44PM

Gerry T wrote: »

I do believe from conception there's a child in the womb and not a clump of cells.

Just because an acorn can become an oak tree, does not mean that an acorn IS an oak tree.

This also doesn't tally with my wife's experience of having three miscarriages in an Irish "Catholic Ethos" maternity hospital. Not a single person involved in her care gave the slightest impression that there was an actual child involved.

antiskeptic · 22-01-2018 06:44PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Just because an acorn can become an oak tree, does not mean that an acorn IS an oak tree.

The more appropriate analogy would examine a small rooted oak shoot.

It's not an oak tree but it's not an acorn either. I've no problem whacking acorns and chestnuts with a stick when I'm out in the woods with my son. But I'd teach him respect for and to thread carefully around shoots.

The latter is considered differently than the former.

As the poster said, it's a matter of what you believe to be the case.

Someone else might see shoots as having no more value than the acorns. Me? It's life and life automatically, naturally, garners a different level of respect.

I can't help feeling that mankind in general shares that view, when it comes to shoots. Indeed, we consider a man who would thread carelessly through a bed of shooting plants ignorant and boorish.

But folk can special plead this gut instinct away for selfish reasons, when it comes to something as intrusive to personal goals as a having a child.

To paraphrase that truest of observations (originally concerning livelihoods)

"it's hard to get a woman to believe something when her personal fulfillment depends on her not believing it"

smacl · 23-01-2018 07:31AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

As the poster said, it's a matter of what you believe to be the case.

Someone else might see shoots as having no more value than the acorns. Me? It's life and life automatically, naturally, garners a different level of respect.

I can't help feeling that mankind in general shares that view, when it comes to shoots. Indeed, we consider a man who would thread carelessly through a bed of shooting plants ignorant and boorish.

The above is an entirely valid sentiment in my opinion, but that doesn't make opposing sentiment any less valid. In a forest or orchard we commonly remove saplings which for various reasons will never thrive. Personally, I would consider telling someone else how to tread in their own garden ignorant and boorish. Not every garden is the same, nor should it be.

Harika · 23-01-2018 09:17AM

smacl wrote: »

The above is an entirely valid sentiment in my opinion, but that doesn't make opposing sentiment any less valid. In a forest or orchard we commonly remove saplings which for various reasons will never thrive. Personally, I would consider telling someone else how to tread in their own garden ignorant and boorish. Not every garden is the same, nor should it be.

Gardening and saplings are an analogy that would support abortion, as for a great garden or trees you would remove healthy saplings for the overall health of the three. Or branches in later stages.
As gardener you would look at the state of the tree and verify if those saplings should grow or be removed so that the tree gets enough nutrition. You would take an objective stance and make a decision on your experience.
While I wouldn't like to see panels that decide if a woman is allowed to get an abortion, more help and care centres would be a good idea to guide a woman through the process. And as stated before, objective but with the goal to show all alternatives to an abortion without agenda.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments